 |
  |
|
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
PERILOUS CONSTRUCTION Thank you for running the news brief "River Moves Near House" (5/4). It highlights a growing epidemic of unwise development in the floodways of Lane County. This development is facilitated by the county's weak riparian ordinances. The house that Michael and Andrea Gramzow built in a vulnerable location on the banks of the McKenzie River is exemplary of poor siting choices seen throughout the county. It is not safe or wise to build in riparian zones. Rivers naturally migrate and meander. Powerful riverine hydrology will likely undermine the large and expensive Gramzow house just as it caused the demise of the nearby six-year-old Mathews house in 2004. In Florence last December, houses in Shelter Cove along the Siuslaw River were deemed in peril as well. There, the river is taking land at an average of five feet per year. Clearly, sites so close to a river with vastly fluctuating flows should not be built upon. Planning departments throughout the county need to tighten regulations that set guidelines for development near our creeks, rivers, lakes and the ocean. With global warming, water levels are expected to rise and flood events to worsen dramatically. I question why the county Land Management Division continues to approve variances and exceptions to setback standards from ordinary high water marks along our waterways. Näive confidence in floodplain maps, weak county regulations and riprap as protective devices against wild rivers and wayward catastrophic events, will set us up for some very unpleasant and costly surprises. It's time to smarten up. Nena Lovinger, Fall Creek
SIMPLY MEDIOCRE While the content of Jason Blair's review (5/4) of United 93 reflects the conclusions of reviewers nationwide, the author too often attempts to sound smart by pairing whatever big words seem vaguely appropriate to his intended meaning. I didn't think I'd miss Lois Wadsworth, who never found a point she couldn't belabor, yet reading the sloppy, imprecise prose of this review, I realize she deserves more credit than I'd previously given her; clearly, she speaks the English language, and if she occasionally overstated and restated, her meaning was always clear. Your editor has offered Jason Blair too much slack, and he's taken the review as an opportunity to hang himself. What do I mean? Well, consider the first paragraph. We get 'simple austerity' (austerity implies the simple), "stunningly unprepared" (the emphasis is unnecessary), the "nominal equivalent" of "utter speechlessness," "terrible ingenuity" (implied by the subject of 9/11), "collective failure" (the use of "our" in the clause before obviates the need for "collective"), and even "painfully obvious" (a dead phrase that's obviously painful). Even if the author and the editor refused to consider whether any of these modifications aided the author's meaning, the repetitive structures should have jangled. It's not that Blair doesn't understand the film, it's that he doesn't make his observations comprehensible. The problem — he's writing a review for people to read — and EW printed it without concern for its readability. I realize EW is a free publication I paid not a cent to read, and if I don't like it I can damn well put it down. No doubt four letters to the next mailbag will suggest I do exactly that, while another three will tell me to take my snobby self back to the library and read "great" literature if I expect something well-written. That's certainly reasonable. Yet it also strikes me that EW aspires to excellence. If so, the paper should avoid avoidable mediocrity. Mike Copperman, Eugene
RIDERS VS. ARMED GANG I was riding my bike the other day with some friends, enjoying a beautiful sunny afternoon when we were accosted by a gang of black-clad bikers. They pulled in front of us and forced us off the road. A very large man, carrying both a club and a gun, got off his bike and started to harass my girlfriend and me. It was an upsetting incident, and what made it even more so was the fact that no motorists bothered to stop and help us out or ask if we were OK, which we most definitely were not! It turned out that the men who had stopped us were agents of the state, and they said that they had the right because two of us had been riding our bicycles side by side; apparently they don't like bikes on what they claim as their turf. They said that they controlled the whole town and that we would have to pay them if we wanted to leave. They even threatened to kidnap us from our homes if we refused. I'm still not sure who they were working for, or what we can do to protect ourselves, but I would suggest that if we stand together as a community we might be do something to get rid of them. If you see any members of this brutal gang, please call your friends, get a video camera and do whatever is in your power to protect your neighbors. If you don't stand up for the innocent, who will? Taylor Pierson, Peaceful Eugene Cyclist
BARRIERS IN THE EW Several topics are covered in the May 4 EW that reflects the limits of our thought processes and our barriers to open discussion. The first is the Day Without Immigrants Rally‚ where Silver A. Mogart states that the reasons for the continuing influx of (illegal) immigrants to this country are "to feed their hungry children or who are running from war." If these are the true motivations, I think that someone should tell the immigrants that they are coming to the wrong country to alleviate these problems. We have native-born American children who are hungry, and our fascist government is gearing up to invade yet another country in the Middle East. Any rational person is against building 700 miles of wall to keep people out and creating felons of anyone providing services to illegal immigrants. But why does the only EW photo show three young women holding up a huge Mexican flag? The questions of allegiance to the U.S., the effect upon legal immigrants who are already here, and the actual reasons that Latino people are coming to the U.S. should be open for further discussion. The second topic is the movie review of United 93. Jason Blair does some analysis behind the filming of this movie, but he does not mention the controversy surrounding it. By building "with the authority of a documentary," it shields filmgoers from the probability that United 93 was shot down. The last topic is Mary O'Brien on "Ethics and Religion." She gives a few examples of the harm done by organized religions, but avoids denouncing the overwhelming interference and destruction enacted by organized religious belief on the environment, on humanity and on human progress. Robert Simms, Waldport
THE LAST GROUP I want to thank Mary O'Brien and EW for the article "On Ethics and Religion" (5/4). It is rare that we get to hear the atheist viewpoint, especially on the topic of ethics. Ethics come from intelligence, not a mythical god. It comes from the ability to perceive the benefits of family, team or community and the ability to empathize with others. Unfortunately there are those who are ethically challenged. They need the threat of punishment in order to do what's right. They need the threat of a monetary fine, time in jail or eternity in hell to live an ethical life. These are the people we shouldn't trust, not atheists. The negative perception of atheists in our society is the result of prejudice. It's the result of a smear campaign religion has headed probably as far back as the first semblance of organized religion. As a result of this, atheist populations are often under-reported. Many choose to be reported as agnostic, secular or non-religious. Studies show that non-believers have a lower divorce rate and make up a smaller proportion of the prison population. The more educated an individual, the more likely they are to not believe in a god. As homosexuals, Hispanics and Muslims gain acceptance in our society, atheists will probably be the last group to gain protection under the PC umbrella. Brian Crook, Eugene
OUTDATED SCHOOL Wednesday night (5/10) I attended the Creswell Middle School open house. I was both appalled and impressed by what I saw. I was appalled by the deteriorating conditions of the middle school facilities. I saw the year-round creek that runs below the northwest portion of the building; a portion of the foundation is actually cut away to allow the creek to flow through. That alone says volumes about the water damage that this old building has endured since its construction in 1941. At the same time I was also amazed and impressed by Principal Shirley Burrus and her staff and students. They are clearly presented with a work and learning environment that has outlived its life, and they have persevered. The science classes cope with electrical systems that cannot handle more than a couple of devices plugged in at a time. The cafeteria staff copes with water damage right above the food serving area. The Creswell community got its money's worth at CMS. Sixty-five years of students, staff, and administrators have stretched our tax dollars to the maximum. Any attempt at more Band-Aids on this outdated school is throwing good money after bad. It is time for us to invest in a new middle school facility that we can be proud of. C. Michael Arnold, Creswell
ETHICS BE DAMNED The Bush administration's active database of millions of our phone numbers is dangerous for many reasons. Here are two: • This information can be used for corporate spying. For example, Cheney could see the contact web of all Halliburton's competitors. Priceless. As all citizens are painfully aware, a business executive does not dissolve his corporate relationships after entering the public sector. • Phone number webs also reveal the strategy of political adversaries. This team of rogue executive politicians and government officials can use this information to subvert, intimidate and adjust their position to assure power. One of the few things that is not a secret about this group of people in the White House is how they treat critics. Ask Valerie. Spying for political advantage is what team Nixon was doing. Makes this taxpayer wonder if the strength of our constitution is merely equal to that of a hand-picked attorney general telling a president that anything and everything he does is legal. How is it that the simple relationship between a man and his hired lawyer could succeed where 100 years of global communism and 30 years of jihad failed in terms of undermining America's "freedom"? I wish the Republican-led congress would do its job and provide oversight. The Republican-controlled congress is like the fans in San Francisco who cheer for Barry Bonds. Despite the slugger being juiced to the gills, the home crowd wants to see their representative break the record and achieve greatness. Bond's supporters elevate the status of Bonds, the Giants and themselves as fans. Mutually beneficial ethics be damned. However most baseball lovers around the country boo Bonds, not because he is a competitor; they boo because Bonds is a fraud. The lack of presidential oversight is due to home team interdependence. Ultimately, if you neglect to pull the weeds, they will take over the garden. As we are witnessing. I would like to say a thank you to the Qwest company decision makers who resisted by not giving out my private web of contacts. Mike Grossman, Eugene
DROPPING AT&T After learning today that AT&T was allowing the NSA to monitor my phone calling records, and that Qwest has refused to roll over to NSA demands that they do likewise, I immediately phoned Qwest and switched to their long distance, letting them know exactly why I was doing so and thanking them for protecting my rights. I then called AT&T and informed them of why I was dropping them. I urge everyone currently using AT&T to do the same. And if you're already with Qwest, you might let them know how much you appreciate their concerns for the privacy of their customers and the letter of the law. Richard Baynton, Eugene
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
