What's causing crime in Corvallis?

I have long believed that lack of self respect and respect for others is at the root of many of the problems in our community.

My family has been the victim of a home robbery as well as theft in the workplace. And so it continues.

If your child comes home with a Beaver jacket you didn't buy, a pair of new shoes you didn't buy or a watch you didn't buy, he or she probably stole it.

A friend did not give it away or trade it. Today, while my car was parked on private property, someone helped themself to a Beaver tire cover my son gave me for Christmas.

That too is stealing. I'm sure you know you really ruined my day.

Sharron de Montigny, Corvallis

Most Corvallis parks do not allow dogs

If Joy Hagler ("Headed downtown? Leave dog at home," Letters, April 16) does not like dogs she should go to the park.

More than 95 percent of the parks in Corvallis do not allow dogs.

Al Moss, Corvallis

Take from workers, give to retirees

Defenders of Social Security miss the target with their proposed "fixes" of the system. Their arguments about increasing the payroll tax, raising the age cutoff, and lowering future benefits are a distraction from the real issue - the immorality of the system itself.

Let's recognize Social Security for what it is: intergenerational theft. The government forcibly extracts earnings from the working class and transfers it to retired folks who have a higher average income. This generational disparity was documented by the Conference Board, and it motivated economist Robert J. Samuelson to describe Social Security as an "exercise in reverse Robin Hood." How is this morally defensible?

Socialists will no doubt proffer the ideal that redistribution of money serves the collective need of society. In other words, people who behaved irrationally and irresponsibly by not saving for retirement have an absolute claim on the earnings of their kids.

Again, how is this morally defensible? And to make matters worse, even the retiree who was responsible and accumulated sufficient wealth to finance their retirement can claim 12 percent of their kids' earnings. Once again, how is this morally defensible?

To top it off, forcing every working person into the system is morally inferior to a retirement system based on free will. How much, when, and in what form I provide for my retirement should be the result of my free choice and action.

Why are we debating mending an immoral system when we should be talking about ways to end it?

Gordon L. Shadle, Albany

'Free' Tibet equals ethnic purification

There is no need to argue about the independence of Tibet, since even Dalai Lama himself admits that Tibet is part of China and claims he never pursues the independence.

The question here is whether we should "free" Tibet? Fellow Americans, let me tell why this is not a good idea:

First, "free" Tibet equals to ethnic purification. Tibet has been a melting pot for Tibetan, Mongolian, Han, Muslim and many many ancient ethnic groups for centuries. What Dalai Lama promotes is trying to remove tens of millions non-

Tibetan people from where their ancestors have lived for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Are you supporting to try to put them back into segregation?

Also, "free" Tibet means mixing religion and state. Most educated Americans know how important separation of church and state is.

I doubt it will be a good idea to let Lamas rule Tibet. Most people (except those Lamas) in Tibet are having a good life and they don't want to go back. Are you supporting to create another Dark Middle Age?

Before you claim I'm brain-washed, think about this fact: I have been in both China and America for a long time. Have you even been to China for even one day?

Jianqiang Shen, Corvallis

We must learn from mistakes in Iraq

Every time I hear Sen. John McCain (or any other politician for that matter) say "It really doesn't matter how we got into Iraq, it's where we go from here," it makes my skin crawl.

This is the first step down the path of repetition.

I feel how we got there is just as important or maybe more important than what happens next.

We should not let the hijacking of our country be swept under the rug because time marches on.

How else can any administration ever learn from past mistakes if it, or the country's citizens themselves, are unwilling to totally investigate exactly how the mistake happened and to hold those accountable for their actions.

I still don't know why we invaded Iraq. Aren't you curious?

If we don't care strongly enough to do the ugly work of finding the truth we'll never know to recognize the danger signs of this happening again.

Unfortunately, since history does repeat itself, it will probably take 20 to 30 years before we find out just how criminal this mistake was.

Steve Dockins, Philomath