Posted: Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:00 am
Drilling off Oregon coast would be unwise, wasteful
One step closer to the quixotic and destructive approach to "energy independence," President Bush on July 14 rescinded his father's Executive OCS deferral of offshore drilling lease sales for oil and gas off the coasts of the United States. (He earlier rescinded the deferrals for Bristol Bay.)
The National Research Council (NRC) in 1991 determined there was insufficient scientific data available to permit leasing in these sensitive waters while securing adequate protection for the marine environment. Since then, no substantial action has been taken by NRC to fill the identified specific scientific data gaps.
Even supposing the oil is found and produced in the quantities necessary to reduce the United States' reliance on foreign oil, the time lag cannot possibly bring reduction in gas prices in the near future.
Realistic and conservative options such as energy efficiency and renewable energy development present a far more constructive and cheaper approach to our energy future.
Liz Frenkel, Corvallis
Seek facts; ignore hype in presidential election
I read with interest and dismay the article about New Yorker magazine's satirical cover. Certainly there is no shortage of pinheads anxious to embrace any negative rumor or innuendo that bolsters their political position. Conservative friends send me e-mail about Barack Obama's supposed marital infidelity, alleged lack of patriotism, "godless" lack of Christian conviction and a host of other ills designed to turn away any who might be tempted by his candidacy.
While the right wing is more adept and vitriolic in their smear tactics, liberals aren't immune by any stretch, forwarding updates on John McCain's dubious leadership skills and inadequate clout to foment his own agenda … not to mention his own marital issues.
The real sadness is that presidential elections in particular have disintegrated into little more than schoolyard name-calling and popularity contests. Has it really come down to voting on one or the other solely based on who's the bigger jerk rather than their qualifications? Is Bill Clinton's zipper problem or George Bush's perversion of Christianity for political gain truly worthy of our consideration in a subsequent election?
In a society raised and nurtured on television sitcoms, agenda-driven news and ad slogans that permeate popular lingo masquerading as actual communication, critical thinking and intelligent discourse is discouraged, if not nonexistent. Questions like: Does Obama's intellect alienate him from the voting public? How about the color of his skin and the allegiances that supposedly implies? Does McCain's war record and horrifying POW experience qualify him as a world leader?
Question. Think. Vote!
Paul Mendell, Philomath
Individual responsibility mantra is overrated
In Will Hormann's July 10 letter, "Individual changes key to bright future," he called our society "impoverished" and "ideologically bankrupt" because too many people have poor character and need to change their behavior and become more responsible.
This argument is so old. It was prevalent in the United States at the turn of the last century, when many of the well-off blamed the squalor around them on the poor moral character of the poor. Social Darwinism originated then to justify the wealthy their riches. But people who tried to help the poor, like Jane Addams, founder of Hull House, came to believe that poor behavior was mostly the result of poverty.
Social studies show a different path to solving our problems than wishing that people would just change. A recent study in Chicago indicates that giving the homeless a place to live pays for itself in decreased costs at emergency rooms. Other studies show that abortions and crime decline when people are economically empowered. Moreover, socialized health care, as in Europe, has turned out to be much less expensive than our own individual-take-responsibility system.
Christian fundamentalists support the Republican Party hoping they will reduce abortions by sending those murderous mothers to jail. Their resultant actual "works" is to increase the multitudes of people killed by our military while we lead the world in the rate of citizens incarcerated. Meanwhile, wealth flows to the wealthy and the numbers of the poor increase. Strange behavior from believers saved by grace alone.
Tracy Rupp, Corvallis
Don't forget that disabled enjoy outdoor trails, too
Rachel Beck's July 10 article, "Fun 101" article, "Off on the right foot," really hit a nerve with me - literally! I have nerve damage in my right foot, and I can't walk very far. Therefore, her very interesting article tended to make me a little sad and also envious of the folks who can get out and hike to beautiful places.
It would be nice if she can do a follow-up piece on wheelchair and electric scooter handicapped-accessible trails, waterfalls, rivers, parks, forests and other pretty and shady spots (besides the three "easy paths" she mentioned). An article on accessible indoor venues, i.e. museums, would be appreciated also.
Joan Shaw, Corvallis
Here's a hypothetical illustration of ODOT-think
Today from the too-weird-to-be-true, maybe, department:
The University of Washington has boarded up, bricked over or placed iron bars on every window in a 12-block radius of the Seattle, Wash., campus.
This action was taken in an effort to deal with the eight students that fell from windows over a 41-year period.
Campus officials said their innovative approach to safety came a a result of close collaboration with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Rail Division.
Patrick Acree, Corvallis
'Progressives' single-minded, narrow in their views
For those who think petitioning the City Council about national matters is a valid form of "grass-roots" political participation, this probably is a good moment to remind them that this country always has had a grass-roots form of representative government - and that form typically doesn't take the shape of particular special interest groups petitioning sympathetic city councils to pass their pet ideological agendas.
While it may seem satisfying to you to have your personal viewpoint publicly validated by the ideologically like-minded, it is deceiving to believe that the pet agendas of the day are representative of their populations as a whole. It does not matter whether or not Chicago or Boston or San Diego's city governments passed similar resolutions. Undergoing the same lack of political participation, their pronouncements are just as meaningless.
These "grass-roots" backdoor attempts to force opinion are not only unfair to the population at large, they also are unfair to the "progressive" minded among us who will only come away bitterly disappointed, believing that we must live in some sort of fascist theocracy if in the end the greater representative government doesn't vote their way.
Although admittedly preferable to overturning cop cars, smashing store-front windows or torching the ROTC building, we still need to work on our assumptions that your views outweigh anyone else's. In this, the "progressives" still have plenty of need for progress.
Harry J. Mallory, Corvallis
Since 9/11, 'terror war' has hit our economy, freedom
Regarding John Brenan's July 16 letter, "Credit Bush for no attacks since 9/11":
While it may be true that there have been no overt terrorist attacks on the United States since 9/11, I'm thinking that there are other ways of terrorizing a nation which defines itself primarily in financial terms.
As I recall, Osama bin Laden's basic aim is to bring this country to its knees economically. A look at various articles in the July 16 issue of the Gazette-Times indicates that his goal is well on the way to being achieved: "Downturn gains steam as inflation roars ahead"; "Natural gas prices to soar"; "McCain, Obama pledge more troops for Afghanistan"; "GM to cut salaried workers, production, stockholder dividend."
I have yet to read in this newspaper - or much of anywhere else - about Iraq's position on the presence of foreign troops in their country. As I understand it, the leadership of Iraq would prefer that we withdraw troops and remove American bases from Iraqi soil.
Since our presence there has primarily to do with America's need to protect energy sources in the middle east, I'd say that our best move will be to shift the focus on alternative energy production to the top of our list of priorities. This, along with continuing efforts to reduce energy consumption in general, will go a long way toward supporting the human race as natural disasters and issues related to global climate change continue to impact the inhabitants of planet Earth.
Cynthia Cutting, Corvallis