Letters for March 4, 2004

Good editorial
Re “Close the immigrant gap” [RN&R, Editorial, Feb. 26]:

Thank you for the honest and factual editorial in the RN&R regarding migrant workers. These facts have been swept under the rugs for far too long. It is very unfortunate that people choose to look away, but boy, do they appreciate a helping hand when they are in need.

Olivia LePage
via e-mail

Get gassed
Time to wake up and smell the coffee, America. Like it or not, the day-to-day health of our country is based on the price of oil at the pump. Democrats and Republicans are so busy throwing rocks at each other that concern for the needs of the people run second. We all know our purchases are based on our ability to pay basic bills and place a roof over our heads, food on the table and fill the gas tank. All of those things, from our jobs to that bottle of dishwashing liquid, are cost-controlled by the price of oil. Until we can place some control on oil prices, America can’t control our own financial growth.

We have the means and the technology to take control, and the only thing stopping us is our elected officials. We have the technology to build super-heater solar boilers that can separate hydrogen from water to run generators for electric power as well our transportation as a substitute for oil. We have massive oil reserves in Alaska that could flood the market with American oil and force down the price.

Nothing will change unless people sit down and start calling their representatives and demanding action. This is not a party issue; it is an American issue, and unless you want to pay double at the pump, you better do more than blame Bush for your problems, as Kerry will do no better.

Phil Hurbace
via e-mail

Gays shouldn’t get married
Re “Changing the Constitution” [RN&R, News, Feb. 26]:

People count on the media to tell the truth. I find it outrageous that you choose to exploit such an obvious lie in your subtitle of this article where you state, “The campaigning president makes a plea to forbid equal treatment to gays.” The President has never advocated unequal treatment of gay people.

The President and many of your readers are against changing the definition of marriage. The Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines marriage as, “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” For thousands of years, this is what marriage has meant.

I think the president has been consistent and clear in his view that same sex couples can have the same rights as married couples. We don’t need to change the definition of marriage to have this occur. I’ve not heard anyone state clearly what rights same sex couples feel they are being deprived of because, by definition, they can’t be married.

I, for one, am very happy with the measured federal response to this issue. Here we have the mayor of San Francisco acting like he’s in charge of a Third World city where he can choose which laws he will and won’t enforce. We are a nation of laws, and Newsome is not empowered to change this law, either in the U.S. or before God.

Perhaps you could try reporting the real issues rather than stating bold lies in your paper. At the very least, I’d like to see you retract this lie and print an article which explains the facts rather than some ultra liberal opinions.

Denny Sauer
via e-mail

Safer under Gore
Re “Bush in 2004” [RN&R, Letters, Feb. 19]:

Mike Arp’s suggestion to ask myself if I feel safer with Bush than Gore at the helm seems like a useful exercise. I’d start with a brief survey of the information the Bush administration had before the 9/11 attacks. The fact that since 1994 the FBI suspected terrorists of taking flight lessons for the purpose of learning to fly jumbo jets into civilian structures seems pertinent. Ignoring agent Kenneth Williams’ appeal to pursue that information in connection with Zacarias Moussaoui two months before 9/11 lends a sharper focus. Foreign news coverage of an impending event weeks before the attacks occurred tell the story Americans still may not be hearing. Using the horror of 9/11 and a series of half-baked justifications (lies) to sway public opinion in support of the illegal invasions that Bush’s neo-conservative puppet masters had long been spoiling for sums it up: Anyone, even dopey Al, might have succeeded in preventing the 9/11 attacks if that had been their intention.

Mike’s extensive list of historical simplifications illustrates the conservative strategy of creating Orwellian Newthink using shallow one-liners that make sense only in the black and white world reconstructed to justify the party line.

Taylor Mirich
via e-mail