Don't publish president's remarks as Opinion

I truly enjoy the Gazette-Times. Thank you for generous service that is offered. Yet I would appreciate it if you would feature the president's remarks in full somewhere else besides the Opinion page. In general, we could use more direct communication with those actually involved and less of the hearsay and speculation provided by professional consultants for news that is really ongoing commentary anyway.

Isn't it wonderful that President Obama makes such efforts to speak for himself?

And, from us average folk, it would be nice to hear the same respect that would be expected by supporters of the opposition if their candidate were elected be afforded to our standing president. It's more than a crazy dream: We can have healthy discussions that validate all points of view without an atmosphere of insults.

Thank you to all who participate.

Judy Hays-Eberts, Philomath

Labeling decertification a free speech issue is silly

Paul F. deLespinasse's Feb. 5 letter, "Limiting speech on union decertification unwise," regarding President Obama's reversal of an existing executive order omits a key fact: Where deLespinasse complains that Obama is hurting the free speech rights of employers by preventing them from posting signs saying the workers can decertify a union, most news outlets that covered the story noted the reason Obama reversed the rule was simply to treat all workers equally. After all, non-unionized workplaces are not required to post signs informing their workers that they have the right to unionize.

In other words, Obama is merely restoring neutrality in federal government policy on this issue, and Mr. deLespinasse is a bit dishonest in claiming otherwise.

Dennis Dugan, Corvallis

Bush did far more harm than ever he did good

The Jan. 29 letter of Chuck Wenstrom claims that he and millions of others applaud Bush for the "good he did."

A Jan. 23 newspaper article refers to a study made by two nonprofit journalism organizations which found that "Bush and top administration officials issued HUNDREDS OF FALSE STATEMENTS about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"The study concluded that the statements 'were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and in the process led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.'"

It refers further to 935 COUNTED LIES during the two-year period, assigning 532 occasions wherein Bush and his co-conspirators stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

Further, the study found "The Bush administration led this nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Bush made 231 false statements about WMD in Iraq and 28 false statements about Iraq ties to al-Qaida.These figures were supported by public statements made during two years after 9/11 and info from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

Clinton's sexual baggage et al pales alongside Bush's lies, which led to the deaths of over 5,000 American troops, hundreds of thousand of Iraqis, and contribute heavily to the financial disaster at home.

John Barry, Corvallis

What's wrong with this traffic picture?

Monday, Feb. 2, 2009, between 4:14 and 4:45 pm.

1. I'm leaving the parking lot beside the university bookstore. As I am traveling down the row of cars, two students step out from between parked cars directly in front of my moving vehicle.

2. I'm traveling east on Circle Boulevard. A man crosses in front of me from the far side of the street on a bicycle. There is no crosswalk or intersection. He is followed by a boy on his bicycle. There is not sufficient clearance for the boy to cross.

3. I'm headed North on Ninth Street. A man comes walking across (no intersection or crosswalk) and I think he will probably stop in the center lane as there is traffic in both lanes headed north. He proceeds directly in front of us.

Yes, I slammed on the brakes in all three instances. No, I didn't hit anyone.

Why are people so careless of safety issues, and even more important, what is the boy on the bicycle learning from his elder?

Be careful folks, the laws are made to protect you!

Sonya G. Richardson, Corvallis

Why not make marriages either civil or religious?

In Joan Wheeler's Feb. 3 letter, she claims to be stating facts that she believes refutes points made in letters from Robert Gourley and myself. However, Ms. Wheeler supplies no evidence to support her facts. Without evidence, I would consider her points to be opinions.

Like my last letter, I suspect lack of space to be the reason. So, I will agree that there are different opinions on the history of marriage, both sides having evidence to support their claims.

But, let me state a real fact: The marriage license on my wall has the state seal on it. That is because it was issued by our state government. As such, it is a legal, governmental document recognized at the state and federal level. It is not a religious document.

While a marriage ceremony is something that can, and often does, occur in a church, the actual contract is a legal agreement between two people, and the government that gives the couple more than 1,000 benefits, rights and privileges at the federal level of government. Legally, a marriage is recognized only by the document, not by the ceremony. This has been, historically, the case in this country.

Both Mr. Gourley and Ms. Wheeler believe that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community should find a word other than marriage. But I would suggest a different alternative. I think there should be civil marriages and religious marriages. Both would get the government-issued marriage license, but only the religious ones would have the added religion-issued certificate.

Tom Johnston

Corvallis

Social Security gives a low-yield, bad investment

Millions of Americans, including thousands of readers of this newspaper, utilize the services of a financial planner to assist them with their investments and help build a comfortable nest egg for retirement years. This is a perfectly logical approach to take.

Imagine, however, that at age 22 they signed up with a planner who had them put one-eighth of their annual income into an insurance annuity. This annuity invests in absolutely nothing but ultra-safe, low-yielding U.S. Treasuries, and will do nothing but that for the entire 45 years our current 22-year-olds are in the workforce.

The buyers of the annuity are never, ever allowed to stop putting one-eighth of their annual income into it, and they can never cash it in and get a lump-sum payment.

Since the sellers of the annuity have higher-than-normal expenses and invest in nothing but low-yielding bonds, the lifetime monthly payments starting at age 67 are quite low and not enough to live on. When the owner of the annuity dies, the seller sends his beneficiary an amount equal to 47 cents for each month he made contributions.

Obviously, the financial planner who would do this to a client is a charlatan who should be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Yet I just described the U.S. Social Security System that will be forced on every single young American getting his first paycheck this year.

I somehow doubt that they will be grateful.

John Brenan, Corvallis