Posted: Friday, March 2, 2007 12:00 am
I note your agreement last Friday with the letter writer who believed those persons who left a college basketball game upon its conclusion, rather than choosing to remain for a "special ceremony," were unconscionably rude. I must concur. Although there had been two overtimes, and it was getting late, and no doubt some of those in attendance actually had to get up and go to work the next morning, this does not excuse their boorish lack of acceptable values. In fact, I think all of us now must have the courage to stand up for what is right.
I propose in the future to employ armed guards at all of the auditorium's exits. In this way, our good citizens will be more than just implored into political correctness - they will be intimidated into it, which is only right. After all, we are The United States of America, are we not? And, we must strive mightily to catch up with nations such as Cuba, don't you think so?
Don't you agree?
Robert Stevenson, Corvallis
Miscues doomed Karly Sheehan
The articles describing Karly Sheehan's nightmare were profoundly moving. Two factors stuck with me:
First, the system set up to protect children made an all-too-common assumption that allowed the abuse to continue; it focused on the first person proposed as the abuser and failed to adequately investigate this little girl's entire environment.
Karly's father was intimidated by the Department of Human Services staff. The DHS and law enforcement intimidation of a presumed abuser is part of the problem. Once we lock in on a particular scenario, all our ensuing thoughts and actions perpetuate that belief, closing off a search for the truth. It's a systemic flaw. Passing new laws is not the way to fix what is wrong with the system.
Second, the article mentioned that someone (the killer in this case) apparently tried to use the child protection system in a plot to abuse Karly and blame it on Karly's father. Using false child abuse allegations as a weapon is growing into an epidemic - a symptom of our culture's ills.
Experience and the professional literature now support and encourage anyone investigating the possibility of child abuse to take a thorough look at the entire constellation of people and circumstances in the child's life.
What can we learn from Karly's life and death? To pay attention. To look more thoroughly at individual situations. Let's also acknowledge that sometimes allegations may not be true. They may be pointing to something very different than what is assumed at first glance.
Cammie Bella, Corvallis
Bold declaration of Zionism begs motive
Re: Rabbi Barnett's Feb. 28 letter, "Seek Mideast peace and understanding":
I was very impressed by Rabbi Barnett's lead, "I am a Zionist."
The rabbi is very aware that this is an extremely controversial statement. I wonder at his motive.
In August l975, in Lima, Peru, a statement issued by the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries "… severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology."
In November, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed Resolution 3379 which states, in part, "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." (The resolution was rescinded in l992 under huge pressure from the United States.
Jimmy Carter, an accomplished and acclaimed global diplomat and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has recently published "Palestine: Peace or Apartheid," which basically is a history of the development of apartheid in Zionist Israel.
In 1971, my wife and I arrived in Haifa, Israel, via a ferry from Cyprus. We were two of perhaps 20 very scruffy world travelers, complete with very little money, very long hair and tattered backpacks.
Israeli port authorities separated us into two groups, Jews and non-Jews. The Jews were given Israeli citizenship. We were given 90-day visas.
Welcome to apartheid Israel.
For more insights into the international politics of Zionism, Google "boycott apartheid Israel." This boycott is similar to the event that led to the demise of apartheid in South Africa.
Kirk S. Nevin, Corvallis
Oppose bill limiting family rides on ATVs
Quick, name an activity in which three generations can participate at the same time for an entire weekend, and everyone has a good time. Ours is riding all-terrain vehicles, commonly known as ATVs. Our children love riding with us, and they always wear their protective gear on rides. Sponsors of SB 49 are trying to take this family activity away from our children, who have been riding safely with us for more than four years.
The poster child for Safekids and the sponsoring senators tragically died by himself while riding on the family property in Turner. Senate Bill 49 supporters postulate that even if his mother had been riding with him, she couldn't have lifted the quad off him. When our boys were little, we walked with them on the sidewalk, between them and traffic. We did this not so we could perform surgery on them when they got hit by a truck in the road but to keep them from getting hit in the road in the first place. This is what people in our circle call adult supervision, and it is why our group never lets children ride alone.
This tragedy wasn't the ATV's fault, or the dealerships, because the parents rejected the free safety training class that was offered. It wasn't the fault of my children, who will be punished by being banned from riding with family and friends.
Do not let one parent's negligence in using an adult-sized ATV ruin this family activity for all Oregonians. Oppose Senate Bill 49.
Matthew Hector, Lebanon
Frank political talk bridges differences
Ken Real is right. I'm stereotyping Republicans. (Letters, Feb 23, "Political labels don't apply or enlighten"). But, it works. The Republican Party has used stereotyping very effectively. I have some nice neighbors and some nice relatives who are Republicans. Problem is, they vote the wrong way. They are swayed by trumped-up family values issues and fear-mongering that the kings of capital invent to divide us.
Ken says there's no difference between the parties. Imagine no Iraq war. Republicans say they were just misled. A lot of nice people aren't thinking things through. They wave the flag or display the cross but vote for the kings of capital and against the interests of regular folks (of themselves even).
Why doesn't a Republican protest my lambasting? Maybe because it takes courage to put your words in print on contentious issues. It's well known that a (stereotypical) Republican is easily persuaded by fear-mongering (as if marriage or the English language were really in any danger).
My strategy is simple: Shame Republicans away from that awful party and unite to demand a pluralistic democracy. Check out www.just6dollars.org for a way to publicly fund our elections. Support automatic run-offs so a person can (finally) vote his first choice without throwing the election to his worst choice.
This is for patriots, people willing to fight for the democracy our forefathers bequeathed to us. I suspect that Mr. Real and I agree a lot more than we disagree.
Tracy Rupp, Corvallis
Some facts missing from climate debate
Recently the world's largest general scientific association (comprised of 262 affiliated societies) called climate change "a growing threat to society." The local Corvallis defenders of Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor have failed miserably to acknowledge one very critical caveat: George Taylor apparently is selective about the science he will believe.
George Taylor is a "round table" member of the Tech Central Science Foundation, a group funded by ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil has tried to "buy" public policy by using its vast wealth to cast doubt on climate change. ExxonMobil funded a secret program through the American Petroleum Institute to debunk climate change using teachers as the pawns back in 1998. How low and despicable can they get?
From time to time, other scientists - such as Fred Singer and Sallie Baliunas - are mentioned as "bold contrarians" in the world of investigatory science, when in reality they traded facts for being corporate paid vehicles of propaganda.
Like the debacle surrounding Hal Salwasser, the dean of OSU's forestry college, when Salwasser tried to silence "science" that clearly showed the boondoggle of clear-cutting burned forests, Mr. Taylor and his climate change skeptics have let ideology influence their "scientific method."
The American Enterprise Institute, in the clearest example of "science prostitution," was found to be offering $10,000 to "scientists" to outline shortcomings in the IPCC report on global warming. AEI is an ExxonMobil-funded think-tank that can manipulate science and pay scientists to confuse the public.
What a shameful example of our fossil fuel addiction.
John F. Borowski, Philomath