Not all Corvallis embraces goals of 'sustainability'

The third "Sustainable Corvallis" town hall meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 7 did not appear to me to represent a cross section of the citizens of Corvallis. I wonder if the sustainability leaders have a profile of the people presenting the vision for the city. It is important to identify this group of self-selected, nonelected people who are proposing to determine the future of the community.

The City Council should carefully analyze each of the goals before attempting to implement them since voters were restricted to only the options presented without discussion. Most of the goals were selected by about 50 percent of the voters. Hardly a strong consensus.

Every citizen who is interested in their future and the community needs to log on to http://www.sustainablecorvallis.org/workgroupproposals. Read and think about what is being proposed.

Working toward these goals will require significant money and resources. The majority of the goals are unachievable and inefficient.

Goals that are desirable are already being worked on by people who recognize their value. The other goals suggested can only be achieved by enforcement and indoctrination.

If you don't mind being told how to live your life, where and how to live, travel, eat and think, then just ignore all of this. If you enjoy some degree of freedom, then I strongly urge you to become informed and involved.

Charles R. Nelson, Corvallis

When in doubt, voting 'no' is the most prudent option

I would like to thank the Gazette-Times editorial staff for its suggestions on Oct. 8 and 9 about ballot measures. I certainly agree that voters should think carefully about ballot measures and when in doubt, "almost always vote no is an honorable vote." I think this is especially true for the five measures brought to us by Bill Sizemore, Loren Parks and their paid signature gatherers.

The most onerous of these is Measure 59, which creates an unlimited deduction of federal income taxes on individual taxpayers' Oregon income tax returns. Of the 41 states that have income tax revenues, 33 states give no federal tax deduction, period! However, Oregon is one of eight states that does provide a deduction.

Wisely, Oregon has capped its deduction at $5,600 this tax year so that all Oregonians benefit. Measure 59 would remove the $5,600 cap and give an additional - but unaffordable - windfall only to Oregon's more affluent households. Most Oregonians would not receive meaningful relief from this measure as between $1.1 billion and $2.4 billion would be cut from the state's general fund budgets which provide essential services for all Oregonians.

Sizemore's other measures are numbers 58, 60, 63, and 64. Consistently these measures are costly, unfunded and unwise mandates on schools and local governments. Examine these measures carefully and if you have doubts, vote no.

Cliff Trow, Corvallis

Consider the pitiful plight of hens that lay our eggs

The Oct. 10 Gazette-Times contained an article about Proposition 2, the California ballot measure that would require factory farmers to give animals more space and would impact the millions of egg laying chickens who are confined for their lifetimes in battery cages.

Here is a craft project which speaks with more clarity than words ever can:

Take a piece of 8½-inch by 11-inch typing paper. Fold it into thirds. Cut off the top third of the paper. This is the amount of space in which egg-laying chickens must live for their entire lives.

Now using the best rule we have for how to treat others - the Golden Rule. Imagine the life of a chicken in one of these cages. She's never able to spread her wings; never able to take a step; never able to feel sunlight; never able to feel the ground beneath her feet; never able to take a breath not filled with burning ammonia fumes; never to mother her chicks; never to know a moment of kindness. Never, in fact, to experience even one pain-free, happy moment. This is happening now to millions upon millions of living, feeling beings.

Inside each of us is the knowledge that this is not right. We need to open our eyes and our hearts and right this wrong. Let's hope this ballot measure is just the start of an era of big changes in how we treat our fellow beings.

Nettie Schwager, Corvallis

Review record of 20th century 'conservatives'

Joseph Fulton states in his Oct. 8 letter, "Liberals championed civil rights change," that my interpretation of American history is "absurd" and "bizarre," and that liberals have done the heavy lifting in "great issues of social change" while conservatives took an adversarial approach. Let's examine some of the social change of the 20th century, a period more familiar to most than the Civil War era.

Mr. Fulton wrote that the Republican party had become staunchly conservative by 1964 (the year of the Goldwater nomination), but did not fix a date for the Democrats' embrace of liberalism. Surely, however, that would have been a fait accompli by 1932, when FDR brought the New Deal to the country.

One of Mr. Fulton's great issues, women's suffrage, was passed by Congress in 1919, long after the beginning of the labor movement and after the Democrats started their transition to liberalism. Yet, in the House of Representatives, 91.3 percent of Republicans (200 of 219) voted aye, while only 59.3 percent of Democrats (102 of 172) did so.

In 1964, (when even Mr. Fulton concedes the Republican party was "staunchly conservative"), the monumental Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. The final tally in the house showed 80.2 percent of Republicans voting aye versus only 61.3 percent of Democrats. The second monumental bill, the Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, one year later, and the tallies were similar. So the two great pieces of civil rights legislation of the 20th century garnered more support from conservatives than liberals.

The record speaks for itself.

John Brenan, Corvallis

Let's avoid mixing OSU basketball and politics

Regarding the Oct. 10 front-page article, "Craig Robinson rallies Obama supporters":

OK, enough. Let's keep government politics out of Beaver sports. Let politics be politics and sports be sports!

David Gumm, Corvallis

'One-on-one' question clearly meant basketball

The more than 250 people who attended the pep talk by Craig Robinson at Barack Obama's Campaign for Change Headquarters in Corvallis last Thursday had a wonderful opportunity to hear him speak about how important it is for everyone to register to vote and participate in our democracy.

We all enjoyed his informal answers to the audience's questions. "Paul" asked Mr. Robinson about taking on his brother-in-law in "one-on-one," obviously referring to basketball. How the Gazette-Times could distort this question as being about who would win in a "fight" is beyond my comprehension.

I think the Gazette-Times owes Craig Robinson and Barack Obama an apology for assuming that they would even contemplate or joke about fighting with each other.

Amy Roy, Corvallis

Editor's note: We do indeed apologize. This was the consequence of our reporter's untimely lack of familiarity with basketball terminology.