Dems, GOP on fringes both losing sight of real priorities in middle

Over the last few weeks, I have read many letters to the editor that generalize all Republicans as neo-conservatives. I would like to point out the majority of registered Republicans have moderate-based beliefs. However, just as the far-left liberal bunch has taken over the Democrat Party, hard-right conservatives have stolen the Republican Party. This results in two parties that no longer represent the people and place ideologies and platforms above the good of America.

I will be the first to admit the Bush administration made some mistakes (to include huge ones), and I am sure the Obama administration will also make some.

Unlike those people that hated every minute of the Bush years, I hope only the best for the Obama administration, because if he succeeds, then America succeeds.

I also asked that the neo-cons and those elected officials who share their beliefs work together with the Obama administration so America will prevail.

To all those people that attack Republicans and generalize us as right-wing warmongers: I hope that you all wake up and realize that in order to get through these hard times, we must work together. Your group speaks of tolerance and acceptance, but your actions show intolerance and prejudice against those people like me who wear the name Republican.

In the end, this is the same mindset as any bigot who considers all Mexicans as illegal, African-Americans as criminals and American Indians as drunks - and America does not need that injustice.

Kenneth Real, Adair Village

'Puppy mill' legislation sounds good but is seriously flawed

Before you contact your legislator to support the "puppy mill" legislation, HB 2470, please read the bill and carefully consider the ramifications of your actions. This bill is seriously flawed. It is touted as a means to prevent abuse by limiting the size of dog breeding facilities.

Abuse can happen if there is one dog or many dogs. Conversely, responsible breeders can provide good care to many dogs. The way to address dog abuse is to strengthen Oregon's already-strong animal abuse laws and to provide more funding and support for prosecution.

The Brower dog case is being used as a reason for this bill. People who collect and hoard animals will not bother to obey limits and, more importantly, the Brower case was handled with the existing animal abuse laws. Major support for this bill (and similar bills introduced in many states this session) comes from animal rights organizations whose final goal is no domestic pets.

Restriction of the number of intact dogs a breeder may have on their premises will also restrict responsible dog breeders. If this legislation is passed, the next step will be to further restrict the number of dogs any breeder may have. Then, finally, no breeding of dogs. I strongly oppose this bill and hope that any responsible pet owner will carefully consider the implications of this legislation before contacting the state representatives that are working on the bill.

Karen I. Timm, Corvallis

Despite what columnist Joel Stein says, science is not boring

I'm not sure I understand Joel Stein's writing style (Column, March 2, We'll all pick the science fictions we'll buy into."). I know I'm not supposed to take him very seriously, but sometimes I have disagreements with his logic.

Stein attempts to connect with ignorant readers by acknowledging that he hates science. I'm not insulted; I just think it's a foolish proposition in an otherwise clever opinion piece.

Yes, both the far right and liberals in general are ignorant, confused and suspicious about science. That's not because science is boring; it's because our culture is dysfunctional.

Science is the method we use to understand how the world works. Is the entire world boring? Is it a given that everybody hates the world? I could be provocative too, you know. Those who think science is boring (as if the whole world could be boring) are boring people.

Don Boucher, Corvallis

Supreme Court's decisions not always ultimate authority

In 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court defined what the constitutional separation of church and state meant.

Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority in a 5 to 4 split decision, said: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

Justice Black's words are fiction, I believe. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - was intended to prohibit Congress from passing legislation providing for the formal and legal union of any single church, religion, or sect with the federal government.

There is no historical evidence that the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit aid to religion by the federal government when it was provided on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and their Senates committed money from the federal treasury to build churches through treaty agreements with Indian tribes.

Robert G. Gourley wrote: "How Prichard came to the conclusion that the 'Establishment Clause' is to protect the state from the church is beyond me" (Letters, Feb. 13, "Clarifying a letter on church, state separation"). I have never said or implied what Gourley alleges. It is those who have followed Justice Black's fictional interpretation of the First Amendment who have concluded that the Establishment Clause is to protect the state from the church.

David R. Prichard, Corvallis

Oscars' glamour code rang ironic in a year when 'Slumdog' won big

I am happy, like everyone else, about the eight awards gathered by the film "Slumdog Millionaire" at the Oscars last month in the Kodak Theater. The cast and crew deserve the accolades from their peers for the unflinching depiction of Mumbai's street urchins. But there is a strange disconnect with the deeply emotional theme of this film and the flash and frivolity of the Bollywood-inspired numbers preceding the introductions of the categories for which this film was nominated.

It may be true that stars shine and graciously accept the adulation of their fan base on Oscar night. But it's a sad commentary on Hollywood that even the young cast of "Slumdogs" had to be dressed in mini-tuxes and evening gowns. Heaven forbid they should appear in regular kids' clothes and prove a distraction to their fellow actors and actresses.

It gives short shrift to the films' honored nominees when, as happens with so many award shows, the emphasis is on glamour and appearance and - at all costs - not looking like your next-door neighbor or people you meet in the supermarket.

Must we be really fascinated by tidbits of Meryl Streep's supposed addiction to Prada or Anne Hathaway's preference for Vera Wang or Jimmy Chu shoes when most of us worry whether our paycheck will last to the end of the month? Still, I am happy "Slumdog Millionaire" got eight Oscars (including Best Picture), and that Sean Penn won for Best Actor.

Leo de Vogel, Corvallis