Letters to the Editor
by David Loftus
[a compendium of the form, from newspapers across
the United States, and dating from 1976 to the present.]
Somewhere, I have a copy of an old "Pogo" cartoon in which the main characters of the strip strike various dramatic poses and say, "Excelsior!" . . . "Bosh and Faugh!" . . . and so on. In the final panel, one of them explains to a puzzled onlooker, "We're practicing letters to the editor."
The Letter to the Editor is a minor but charming literary art form. Though it is not one I have cultivated aggressively, over the years I've had some fun with the form.
Editors love brevity and wit. The ideal letter to the editor would be three paragraphs long, each consisting of but one sentence, with either a witty paradox as its theme, or a startling and/or amusing zinger in the final line.
Few of my letters have achieved that ideal -- as a youth, I leaned toward the overly earnest, a common error of the inexperienced, and I will probably never overcome a tendency to verbosity -- but I like to think there's a good zinger or three in this batch.
(I'd say roughly half the letters to the editor I send make it into print, which is a decent batting average.)
Here follows the text of some of the many letters I've had published in various newspapers over the years:
With Skill and Respect (The Coos Bay, Oregon World, October 7, 1976)
[This was, I think, my first published letter to the editor. The State of Oregon had instituted a Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) via Senate Bill 100 (SB 100) to oversee statewide land use planning only a few years before, and conservatives and developers had mounted a campaign to do away with it. Six days later, another letter nearly twice as long attacked my arguments without identifying me by name. My career as a polemicist was off and running! It was the fall of my senior year of high school. I was 17.]
Pardon me, but what must The World see to believe?
Reading your Oct. 2 lead editorial on the Oregon Journal's LCDC poll, it would seem that you cover your eyes at times. At first you solicitously say the results are "hard to swallow" and discuss their possible merits and shortcomings.
By the closing, however, you choose to ignore the poll, declaring "balance ... is obviously missing." Why should we be told that a poll recognized by The World is any more credible than one commissioned by the Oregon Journal?
The opposition to SB 100 is organized and vocal only because it is primarily made up of business and development interests. Destructive criticism is better for profits than discussion and change. Is it because she is a Realtor that the woman passes out sheets saying "Democracy upside down"?
The LCDC wants to talk over and correct minor problems such as the 100-year flood plain. Special interests, however, have forgotten what Alistair Cooke described as the three principals that created our nation's Constitution: "Compromise, compromise, compromise."
The Journal poll says to me that the common man wants a controlled, intelligent appraisal of the lands his God has given him so they can be handled with skill and respect.
Can The World see what our state leaders believe. Gov. Straub and Rep. Norma Paulus have said complaints investigated by the state have had little foundation. Former Gov. Tom McCall told the Lane County League of Women Voters "the basic good sense of Oregonians and their love of the land will prevail."
I agree with Mr. McCall and I am only sorry that I will not be old enough to vote against repeal in November.
(As you can see from the next few letters, a certain columnist for the Boston Herald-American got my goat on a regular basis. What annoys me perhaps more than anything about many conservative columnists is that they are not only wrong (they have that right), but are poor writers (which I think should be grounds for ceasing to publish them). A certain pet of William Buckley's named Joe Sobran had a similar handicap yet was allowed to print on a regular basis. I should have these guys' job....)
Need Training (The Boston Herald, July 21, 1985)
Once again, Don Feder uses half truths to support full lies on behalf of gun lovers.
Feder mentions that Switzerland has the world's highest per capita gun ownership and one of the lowest crime rates. What he doesn't say is that every single Swiss male is required by law to serve in the nation's militia, and receives training in the use of firearms. That is why every household has a rifle.
I'd feel a lot safer if I knew every American male received ongoing training in the use of guns. As it is, any idiot can get a gun merely by signing his name and laying down the cash.
I dare Feder to show me a federal court which has upheld an individual citizen's "constitutional right to gun ownership." There is no such right.
Someday American citizens whose relatives and loved ones are slaughtered each year will realize how the National Rifle Association and people like Feder have hoodwinked them.
No Link Shown (The Boston Herald, August 5, 1986)
Don Feder's column on sex education (July 24) was irresponsible and illogical.
The Johns Hopkins survey may be flawed, but nowhere in his piece did Feder show a causal link between sex ed and teen pregnancy. He merely resorted to insinuation: a) many large city schools have sex ed; b) more than 1,000,000 teens become pregnant every year; therefore, c) the second fact must be the result of the first.
What leads to teenage pregnancies is not sex ed, but a teen's innocent desire to be grown up, which is assaulted by films, television programming, advertising, and peers that say to be grown up is to drink, smoke, drive fast cars, and have sex. None of these sources is a reliable source of knowledge on how to do it safely or fit sex into the context of an adult life.
Feder's answer? "Traditional morality," as if everyone knows what that means. As if there were no teen pregnancies, abortions, rapes, or wife beatings before 1960 -- or 1900. To me, "traditional morality," with all its virtues, tends in practice to treat sex with silence and ignorance. Feder insults all of us who support knowledge about sex, informed choices, and the tools of contraception when he says we believe in the Great Pumpkin.
One last question: How many people out there agree with Feder's assertion that 16-year-old girls "should be playing with baby dolls"?
Welcome to the 20th century, Feder. It may not be as comfy as the past, but it's more realistic.
Feder Off Base (The Boston Herald, Oct. 18, 1986)
I have no doubt the Mayflower Madam's book is self-serving and self-righteous. But Don Feder's handwringing about prostitution versus the family (Oct. 8) misses the point.
He said that sex outside of wedlock weakens the family bond. This puts the cart before the horse. Nobody dragged those husbands into Barrows' business. Most of them went there because they were dissatisfied in the first place.
If prostitution is a sign of trouble with marriage and the family, then they have been in trouble a long time, for prostitution predates western civilization. The truth may be that the availability of prostitutes helps to preserve wedlock because men feel less pressure to work on or dissolve their rotten marriages.
There is no inherent value in marriages or families. They are only as good as the individuals that make them. Feder seems to think there would be no extra-marital sex if all prostitutes were jailed. But this implies men are not responsible for their actions; like kids in a candy store, they will inevitably take whatever is within reach.
Although I believe prostitution should be legalized, I also believe Sydney Barrows has nothing to be proud of. Like war, prostitution may be necessary and therefore should be conducted effectively -- but never with pride, for it is a sad business.
Letters (The Boston Globe Magazine, summer of 1987?)
Kevin Kelly's heart is in the right place. Evidently he would not object to being called a sensitive male. But his article on the subject has nothing of substance to say.
Real human beings surface only once in the piece: via a University of Michigan study of men and housework. All the rest, from Jung and Dr. Rizzo to Bogart and Mr. T, are mentioned only as sources of theories or as images.
In a sad effort to stir up sensational interest in an inherently interesting topic, Kelly resorts to illogic and unexamined generalizations. He writes that ". . . feminists sought to level the differences between the sexes," a fact of which I was not aware. The women's movement seeks the elimination of differences imposed by laws and social attitudes, yes, but not those resulting from physiology and personal choice.
The sensitive male "is confused," Kelly writes, ". . . and, in the force of the new macho onslaught, passivity has overtaken him." The truth is that the sensitive male isn't getting headlines -- and doesn't need them.
It's nice to get attention, but preferably in the form of an approving circle of fine friends rather than a few news stories. It's the men who run to the comfort of stereotypes and cliche who are confused; the rest of us have the strength to live without total certainty, control, and pop images from which to draw all our identity.
The wedding of Schwarzenegger and Shriver struck no "death knell." We are all going to keep on making the choices we desire no matter what Arnie and Maria and the journalists do.
The sensitive male is not a sexy news topic, because he embodies open choices.
Maybe he owns a cat, maybe not; maybe he thinks it's important to work out, maybe not; maybe he likes to follow sports, or maybe they bore him.
With a macho man, you supposedly know, but the sensitive male cannot be pinned down in a few headlines, because images are not enough for him.
And all our friends -- male as well as female -- wouldn't have us any other way.
Judgment Out of Place (The Portland Oregonian, April 28, 1991)
An April 15 national news story said Dr. Ruth Westheimer's marriages "collapsed" and "failed."
This is the sort of subconscious and automatic value judgment that does not belong in a news story. Why not simply say the marriages "ended"?
If the subject herself used such language, then quote her. Only the parties involved have the ability or the right to say their marriage was a failure.
They may, in fact, be quite satisfied with the course of the relationship and the time and manner of its ending. There are other, more important, indices of success in a marriage than duration.
If a man beats his wife, they no longer have physical relations, and both pursue extramarital affairs yet they remain wedded until death, would we say the marriage was a success?
I don't think so.
Nothing New Under The Sun (The Portland Oregonian, May 6, 1991)
This hand-wringing over the latest "proof" that Americans have lost their moral compass (April 29) is extremely funny, yet tiresomely familiar.
It is always tempting to believe things were better in the past -- as if belief in God or the Ten Commandments meant there was no adultery, murder, rape, thievery, or war in the golden 1950s or the 12th century.
Granted, we now have the tools to inflict greater damage on ourselves, on others, and on the entire planet. But the impetus to do so comes from the same private devils we have always faced -- or, rather, ignored.
Yes, many of us are confused and aimless. But this is partly a reflection of freedom and choices that we always had, but that were never socially tolerated before now.
People used to be crushed by the moral certainty of their leaders and neighbors. Now they are driven mad by freedom and the absence of rules to obey and resent.
It requires intelligence, honesty, and courage to live fully in such an environment, and too few of us have them. A structured moral system cannot replace them, either.
This new survey may reveal nothing more than that Americans are more able to acknowledge truths about centuries-old behavior that used to be secret. Humans are probably just as venal (and as lovely) as they have ever been.
Embittered Gun Rights Enthusiast Blows It (The Portland State University Vanguard, March 3, 1993)
Douglas R. Berry's charming letter to the editor (Jan. 26) shows why many gun enthusiasts fail to gain the respect of sane Americans. His logic is faulty, his argument style crude, and his use of the English language grandiloquent but inaccurate.
Berry cites Kleck's study of the lawful uses of guns. Studies also show that homeowners who keep guns are more likely to wound themselves or a loved one than an intruder.
Another unfortunate fact is that a high percentage of stolen property consists of guns taken from law-abiding homes, which are then used in later crimes.
The fact that guns can be used in sport is no refutation of Brian Wells' graphic contention that their primary purpose is to kill people.
Nor is the status of sport any defense in itself: cockfighting, bear beating, and throwing Christians to lions have been popular sports.
I'm not terribly enamored of football or boxing, for that matter, but at least the only people who get injured are the ones who put themselves on the line.
"Nascence" is a lovely word, but Berry misapplied it in his letter. He also tried to compare gun safety to water safety, but rivers and lakes are a fact of life, while guns are manufactured by humans.
What humans can give, they can take away. Japan turned its back twice on firearms. In heavy use in the 16th century, they were banned by the Tokugawa Shogunate on 1603, and disappeared from the scene for two and a half centuries.
Reappearing with the forcible entry of the Americans in 1867, they were banned once again in 1946 by Douglas MacArthur. Today there are fewer gun-related homicides in Japan in a year than there are in New York City in a week.
I suspect the reason "tough gun laws" in certain states and municipalities have little or no effect is that they are not very tough, and neighboring states and municipalities have none, so firearms flow freely in and out of "protected" zones.
One hopes that by the time Mr. Berry receives his English degree, his use of the language will exhibit more grace, dignity, and respect for others.
"Floating World" Lacked Larger Context About Society (The Portland Oregonian, Jan. 30, 1994)
Deanne Noell's letter ("Floating World" depicted oppression, not beauty," Arts, Jan. 16) concerning the Portland Art Museum's "Floating World" exhibit, though somewhat harsh and monochromatic, made a good point, and I am glad you chose to print her remarks at length.
I, too, wondered about the life and ultimate fate of the women depicted so delicately in the Japanese prints. The exhibit intimated that everyone in the Pleasure Quarters lived in luxury and unending happiness and creativity.
Only in passing did I notice the observation that a few of the prostitutes managed to "marry up (or out)," while others were tossed out on the street after they outlived their "usefulness."
Admittedly, an artist is under no obligation to tell any truth about what he or she depicts. And an art museum is not really obligated to talk about the context of an art piece as well as its style, technique, influences, effects.
But art comes into being and survives within contexts. It grows out of particular circumstances, and it comments on, alters, reflects, and pointedly denies those circumstances.
Largely to ignore the political and economic content of art is something of a lie. And a disappointment. I would have liked to know as much about the subjects of Ukiyo-e -- the raw material that went into these memorable pieces -- as I learned of the creators.
At the same time, I found Noell's criticism a little overstated. I am sure some brothels set limits on how "bizarre or violent" a man could be in his use of the women, and perhaps some of the best courtesans set their own.
They were, after all, taught the skills to be more than sexual entertainment; they learned flower arranging and how to perform the tea ceremony.
It might also be fair to say that "respectable" women in that culture also "were given glamorous clothing and housing in exchange for the nightly use of their bodies, the denial of their rights to true intimacy and committed love, the seizing of their free will completely."
After all, most marriages in that culture at that time (as well as many others elsewhere) were arranged.
But "The Floating World" gave us little basis for pursuing such thoughts, or for making any such judgments. And that was a shortcoming.
Walkman Workouts Unsafe For All (The Portland Oregonian, Jan. 31, 1994)
I was astonished that Todd Tulces, folks I see on the streets, and those mentioned in his article ("Workout for your ears," Jan. 16) listen to Walkmans when they run outdoors. It is not only unsafe for women to do so, as Jennifer Robinson was quoted as saying, it's unsafe for everybody.
Whether it makes you less able to hear the cars and bicycles coming at you on the streets or less sensitive to the runners coming up behind you on the safer confines of a track, Walkmans are counter to safe and considerate workouts.
I never wear one because I like to control the music I hear -- in my head. I can replay different tunes for different speeds and switch them instantly if I'm feeling stronger or getting winded.
I don't know a single radio station that will substitute a Mozart concerto for Blue Oyster Cult's "Cities on Flame" in the middle of a verse if I need it.
As one of my favorite couplets in rock says, "Lady Madonna, lying on the bed/Listen to the music playing in your head."
And I can still be aware of approaching footsteps or engines.
Animal Passion or Human Kindness (The Portland Oregonian, Feb. 19, 1994)
The article, "Primitive passion vs. sensibility" (Feb. 6), discussed the supposed animal heritage that guides our romantic choices. The subhead assured us that "chemistry counts," and many paragraphs were devoted to biological pressures upon our choices of mates.
About halfway through, the writer introduced "what is said to be the largest study of human mating preference ever done." Psychologist David Buss, who conducted the study, was allowed to blather on about how his work showed "just what biology predicts."
If one bothered to read to the end, however, the penultimate sentence revealed that, contrary to all this scientific poppycock, the study in fact found that "men and women across the board, from tribal to industrial cultures, ranked kindness as the No. 1 characteristic and intelligence second."
So much for all that discussion of biology. Was it some sort of desperate myth-making? Or is Buss implying that a majority of his survey participants were lying?
Who knows, maybe we've been unfair to the animals all these years. Has anyone polled them to find out whether they, too, might just value kindness and intelligence in their mates?
Or are they as enmeshed in biology -- that is to say, biological myths -- as we are?
Governments Always Support the Arts; So Why Not Now? (The Portland Oregonian, Feb. 5, 1995)
I missed Murry Sidlin's defense of the National Endowment for the Arts ("Imminent NEA demise means society bereft of creativity," Arts & Letters, Jan. 15) and perhaps would not endorse the poetic hyperbole of his claim that the NEA is the caretaker of the nation's soul. But L.A. Rollins' snide riposte ("A country without a soul is a prophesy without teeth," Arts & Letters, Jan. 29) was further off the mark.
I agree there are valid arguments against federal funding of the arts, but Rollins seems to have forgotten that the arts have always been a communal concern. Artists and creative organizations received "government" funding and support long before the NEA was founded.
What would Mozart have left us without the financial backing of Joseph II? Where would Bach have been without Prince Leopold and a variety of churches, or Michelangelo without a succession of wealthy popes?
The church and royalty taxed citizens of the past to finance art, often for their own private glory and consumption rather than for the appreciation of the taxed.
Varying scales of creative endeavor exist, some more complicated and expensive than others. Rollins or I might turn out a poem, book, or painting in the privacy of our own homes, but who can afford to stage Wagner or a decent ballet, or build a heroic sculpture in her backyard?
European governments understand this and subsidize their artistic companies far more heavily than we do. Last Fourth of July I was in St. Petersburg, enjoying Prokofiev's "Romeo & Juliet" done by the Kirov Ballet for the acceptable price of $30 a seat, but only because we had to pay scalpers (or our tour company) to get tickets, which cost locals just $8.
Tired of going to the government with hat in hand to justify arts funding year after year, choreographer Elliot Feld noted: Total government funding for the arts is equal to about one inch of a Trident submarine, so why don't we just cut an inch off all the subs, since everything looks bigger underwater anyway?
Personally, I find the prospect of wasting some money on bad art far less risky than buying another jet fighter or the latest gee-whiz anti-missile system.
[Critique of film review] (The Portland Oregonian, March 24, 1995)
After reading Shawn Levy's review of "Nina Takes a Lover" (" 'Nina' doesn't equal sum of its parts," A&E, March 3), I have to wonder if Levy has ever been married, because he certainly missed the point of this interesting movie.
I agree with Levy's general statements -- that the film is precious and fey and may not make a satisfactory whole of its considerable virtues. In fact, I did not find "Nina Takes a Lover" romantic or erotic, despite the excellent efforts of its stars. But that may have been the effect intended by the writer/director.
Rather, the film poses interesting questions about fidelity, commitment, and honesty, which linger after it ends. Levy seems unable to ask himself why Nina and her lover would make the choices they did. Instead, he wants to recapture the empathy he felt for them initially when they were just fooling around.
I often find the issue of empathy quite beside the point in deciding whether a film was worthwhile. (Think of the cast of "The Last Seduction" or "Pulp Fiction.") Perhaps Levy should have thought more about his emotional response to the film.
In the Case of "Orgy TV" Flap (The Portland Oregonian, June 8, 1995)
For Portland Cable Access attorney Charles F. Hinkle, who also represents the ACLU, to trot out the hoary concern of "(disseminating) obscene material to minors" (May 10) -- in the case of John M. Fitzpatrick's "Orgy TV" -- is absurd.
Subscription cable TV is not open to the public unless the public pays for it. I doubt if anyone has shown that minors subscribe.
The onus is on parents, not on Portland Cable Access, to control children's access. Practically speaking, a majority of minors are routinely exposed to pornography and obscene materials well before the age of 18 and are none the worse for it.
Portland Cable Access, of course, is only trying to protect itself from federal prosecution. Neither it nor anyone else sees any need to "protect children" from viewing the killing and maiming of hundreds of human beings every month.
Fitzpatrick apparently is proposing "Orgy TV" as a method of encouraging greater public pressure for tighter censorship legislation. One has to credit him with more imagination than most enemies of freedom of expression.
Portland Cable Access should call Fitzpatrick's bluff. Have Hinkle draw up a suitable waiver for Fitzpatrick to sign, absolving the station of any responsibility for what he airs so as to protect it from federal prosecution, and see if Fitzpatrick follows through with his threat.
Of course he won't. So why are we witnessing this asinine charade in which both Fitzpatrick and Hinkle pretend to advocate what they don't believe?
Whom Does Tiernan Represent? (The Portland Oregonian, July 29, 1995)
Rep. Bob Tiernan, R-Lake Oswego, says he supported south-north light rail until Clark County voters rejected a bond measure to pay for their portion of the project.
I thought Tiernan was elected to represent residents of the Lake Oswego area.
Or does he think the voters in southwest Washington are so much smarter than his own constituents that he only pays attention when the former have something to say?
Power and Commerce Decide Official Status of Language (The Portland Oregonian, Nov. 8, 1995)
House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes the Quebec independence referendum serves as a warning to the U.S. regarding multiculturalism and that we should make English the official language of the United States.
But if business and government conduct their affairs in English, residents and visitors are going to learn it. And if Spanish, Japanese, Esperanto, or Ameslan were gradually to become the language of commerce and power, everyone would learn that and there would be no point in having English as the official language.
But apparently Gingrich doesn't trust free-market forces. He would prefer to depend upon government intervention.
Spare Sea Lions and Steelhead (The Portland Oregonian, April 14, 1996)
If the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife thinks the only way to save the dwindling steelhead population is to kill sea lions, its analysis is insufficiently global or imaginative.
The salient facts are: (1) the sea lions are taking advantage of steelhead herded by human dams and locks; (2) the disappearance of salmon is due largely to human overpopulation and consumption; and (3) humans possess a range of choice unavailable to sea lions who cannot go vegetarian.
Instead of killing sea lions at the Ballard Locks Fish Ladder, better solutions would be: (1) build many more locks and/or artificial rivers; (2) encourage humans to give up eating steelhead, because they can and sea lions cannot; and (3) feed excess humans to sea lions.
Drunk Driver Killed My Father (The Portland Oregonian, July 20, 1996)
On July 7, a man who was apparently driving drunk killed my father.
I had expected to grow old with my dad; I do not believe his life was meant to serve as a possible excuse for some stranger to seek rehabilitation.
Why do people have to thrust their problems onto innocent bystanders instead of seeking help on their own, or at least keeping it to themselves?
World Politics Brings Cynics Closer Together (The Portland Oregonian, Oct. 19, 1996)
I think it's ironic to see how world leaders support one another in their time of need.
If Saddam Hussein didn't have the United States to distract his country, the people of Iraq would start to notice the wreck of their economy and environment and start to hold it against him.
If Bill Clinton didn't have Iraq for Americans to hate, he might actually have a race on his hands this November.
But Saddam gave Clinton an excuse to lob some missiles, people obsessed about the far side of the globe instead of their own leaders, and everyone's hating and happy again.
Now, if we could only make these purely media events instead of having to waste a few civilians every time we need a public relations boost . . . .
Sickened by Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy (The Portland Oregonian, March 4, 1998)
I think Saddam Hussein should go in and bomb Washington, D.C.
The United States is obviously a rogue nation that doesn't honor its commitments to the international community. It promised appropriate financial support to the United Nations but now is billions of dollars in arrears on its U.N. dues -- yet it presumes to enforce U.N. policy in Iraq without the clear support of the United Nations!
In addition, the United States owns and has used weapons of mass destruction and is friendly with other nations that own and have used weapons of mass destruction. It even sells them around the world.
The hypocrisy of our current foreign policy sickens me.
Most people around the world know perfectly well that Saddam is a tyrant and a bully, and that the United States (intermittently) honors its commitments and (sometimes) supports freedom and democracy.
Mayo's Loud Comments Rude (The Lake Oswego Review, February 1999)
Wayne Mayo of St. Helens was quite right to castigate Lake Oswego students and their drama coach for portraying "vile and offensive behavior" such as kissing on the lips and simulating "absolutely lewd and tawdry sex acts" like masturbation and copulation.
Expecting anyone to approve of "a celebration of sex" -- something none of us likes -- is beyond the pale.
We certainly can't have teenagers pretending to do things that teenagers actually do in real life, like lovemaking; much better to stage plays in which teenagers portray actions that are illegal and forbidden, such as murder, war, assault, extortion, and execution.
I understand Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, and Aeschylus are good for this sort of thing.
Seriously, it strikes me that Mayo was rude to blast his opinion out loud, especially since it was hardly fair to assert, "That was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen," when he had walked out and not seen all of it. I could dramatize incidents from the Bible out of context which would seem pretty risque or gruesome, too.
Mayo seems unaware that his actions may well have insulted and hurt students who worked hard to make a good showing in a scholastic competition.
At the same time, if his account is accurate, it would appear the high school drama coaches overreacted and were rude to him, as well. One bad turn did not deserve another.
I can understand their defensiveness, however, knowing how sanctimonious and belligerent parents can get about curriculum, especially art, which they seem to think must always be reassuring and pretty.
If Mayo thinks he knows children, then he is welcome to continue raising his own as he sees fit, but he should spare everyone else his need to judge and excoriate their choices.
I live in a different world from his, and did so even when I was the age of those student actors. I prefer that one to his.
Defend Marriage Against What? (The Portland Oregonian, July 30, 1999)
I'm pleased to see that the Legislature failed to pass the so-called "defense of marriage" act this session, though many other states were quick to do so.
Before it comes up again -- and we can be certain it will -- perhaps someone could explain why marriage needs any defense.
I'm not aware that anyone, gays included, has lobbied to do away with marriage or urged loving heterosexual couples not to marry.
That marriage may be in trouble I'm willing to grant, but the causes seem to be heterosexual couples who marry and divorce too easily, economic pressures, and abusive and neglectful spouses and parents.
I find it hard to respect a supposedly loving contract freely entered into by autonomous adults if it somehow requires a legal fortress around it to survive.
Are Reps. Bill Witt, R-Portland, and Kevin Mannix, R-Salem, really defending marriage, or once again merely bashing gays?
Family Values Lost in Boy's Case (The Portland Oregonian, Jan. 29, 2000)
Rep. Dan Burton, a member of the Republican Party who is always trumpeting "family values," is sponsoring legislation to make Elian Gonzalez an instant American citizen.
Aside from the insult to all the immigrants who had to establish residency for years and take an exam to become citizens, just how does separating a boy from his father promote "family values"?
The people who want to keep him in Florida talk about saving the boy from the "hell" of life under a Communist regime. I haven't seen evidence that any of them have tried to make life easier for all the other children of Cuba.
In fact, these same members of Congress have supported the trade embargo against Cuba, which has accomplished nothing but entrench Fidel Castro as an embattled David faced with the U.S. Goliath, and caused greater suffering for the common people.
Arguments for War Might Be from Mad Hatter (The Portland Tribune, Oct. 22, 2002)
After listening to the congressional debate on the resolution to grant the president the option to use pre-emptive force in Iraq, I feel like Alice fallen down the rabbit hole.
Everything is the opposite of what people say.
To help the citizens of Iraq, who have been oppressed by their ruler for years and years, we are going to attack and bomb them -- which is a little like kicking the dog because its owner has been starving and neglecting it.
To protect our national security, we're considering war with a nation on the far side of the globe, which undoubtedly will inflame other Arab and Muslim nations.
To preserve world peace, we're going to thumb our nose at nearly all of our Western allies who say this is a bad idea and respond that we know better than they, which makes us the world's bully.
To paraphrase an old and profane hippy slogan, making war "for peace" is like committing rape "for chastity."
Today, I am deeply ashamed of my country.