Letters to the Editor
Portlander
Published Letters: 303 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Mileage Standards - Wrong Test
[Read the article: A band-aid on a gusher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Consumption per mile driven is the wrong test. The proper test is total consumption. I make no apologies for driving an SUV, because I have four Siberian Huskies, and I spend a lot of time in the snow in the Cascades. The offset is that I changed my lifestyle to enable my hobbies. I live in the city of Portland, I work at home, I walk or ride my bike, so I only drive 5000 miles per year. My total gasoline consumption is about 300 gallons per year. I know quite a number of people with 40 MPG vehicles that drive more than 30,000 miles per year. That's more than 750 gallons total consumption. Who's the gas guzzler here?
-
The Moon is Down
[Read the article: The passion of George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nice post AJCalhoun, but 'The Moon is Down' is Steinbeck not Hemingway.
-
Rain Man
[Read the article: "Mission: Impossible III"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am no Tom Cruise fan at all, but his performance in Rain Man was really very good - indeed, considerably better than the performance of Dustin Hoffman in the main role. Other than that, Tom sucks, and he's a cultist whack job to boot.
-
Oath
[Read the article: Maybe they need a marriage counselor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]'So help me God' is not part of any official oath of the United States.
-
Oath
[Read the article: Maybe they need a marriage counselor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I looked, you're right. Can't even trust the Senate of the United States to preserve religious freedom.
-
No DINOs
[Read the article: Which way to the White House?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am 58 years old and a lifelong Democrat, but, under no circumstances, will I again hold my nose and vote for some centrist scumbag or worse masquerading as a Democrat. Mark Warner is not even a centrist:
1- Warner supports the war in Iraq - Strike 1
2- Warner opposes single payer national health insurance - Strike 2
3- Warner supports the Patriot Act - Strike 3
4- Warner is far too 'pro-business' (want someone to stand up to the corportocracy not kiss its butt - Strike 4
5- Warner supports the exporting of American jobs for profit - Strike 5
6- Warner is an anti-environmentalist - Strike 6
and on and on and on. NO!
-
Anonymous, Please
[Read the article: Which way to the White House?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pro choice is good, but Susan Collins is unabashedly pro choice, and she's a Republican. Warner has never called for an end to the war in Iraq - indeed, he's very wishy-washy about that. It's very simple, if you don't support ending the war, then you support continuing it. If you don't support repeal of the Patriot Act, then you support it. If you praise some of Bush's extreme environmental positions - changes to Endangered Species Act, support for Clear Skies, support for forest 'thinning', etc. - then you can't claim to be an environmentalist. In 1970, Warner would actually have been called what he is - country club Republican.
-
Press
[Read the article: Bush to the media: Shut up and wave the flag]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Had the American press been doing its job during WWI, the U.S. might not even have entered the war. The U.S. was routinely and flagrantly violating its neutrality by the end of 1914 by trading war materiel with only one side of a belligerency. Eventually, this violation led to unrestricted German submarine warfare against U.S. merchant ships - justly in this case. Had the public known of this violation, we might have backed off our support for just one side.
Also, one of the prime causes of the rise of Nazi Germany was the Treaty of Versailles. Its ridiculous attribution of fault to Germany and its grotesque restrictions on Germany, especially its military, were the basis of profound resentment in Germany. Hitler tapped into this resentment and manipulated it for his own purposes.
-
Plagiarism
[Read the article: In defense of Ann Coulter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A better way to say it is 'The Plagiarist formerly kinown as Ann Coulter'. The un-Prince as it were.
-
Racism
[Read the article: Women vow attacks inside Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, Rebecca, it's OK for Israeli women to ethnically cleanse Palestinian land, steal Palestinian water, steal and destroy Palestinian crops and murder Palestinian children, but it's not OK for Palestinian women to resist. You disgusting racist.
-
RT
[Read the article: Women vow attacks inside Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]KRD-
I don't really disagree with you. I reject the notion that Palestinians killing Israelis is terrorism, but it is certainly murder and doesn't lead to peace. BUT, RT's story is inherently racist. What other choices do Palestinian women have? They can resist or they can roll over and spread their cheeks for Israeli occupation filth. Why is it OK for Israeli settler women to make their choices? I believe that RT is an all-out supporter of Israel and doesn't even realize that her article is racist - but it is.
-
Terrorism
[Read the article: Women vow attacks inside Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jeffrey-
Hate filled? You don't know anything about me. The day you hold a single standard for terrorism, I will stop writing. If you're willing to declare all Israeli settlers as terrorists, then I'm willing to agree that these suicide bombers in the making are terrorists. If not, then you are stuck with your classic double standard. Dispossession and settlement of occupied terrotory are war crimes - check out the Fourth Geneva Convention. BTW, I guess you would agree that the French Resistance were also terrorists since they killed thousands of German civilians.
-
Guns
[Read the article: Will Iraq sink a key GOP incumbent in New Mexico?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tyler-
Interesting that you move the debate to guns.
I am a far left Democrat, but I can read the Second Amendment. You do have the right to bear arms. In fact, the Second Amendment guarantees that you have the right to have one gun of some kind. It does not guarantee you the right to have two guns or handguns or automatic weapons, etc. If you have one gun, then your right to bear arms has not been infringed. Reading anything else into the Second Amendment is just as wrong and evil as claiming that it does not give people the right to bear arms.
My personal preference is for a law that allows you to have an unlimited number of single-shot long weapons with no registration of any kind. If we can agree that that comports with the requirements of the Second Amendment, then there is common ground to be explored. If not, we fight about guns forever.
BTW, there is NO right to hunt. I don't support prohibiting hunting, but it is a point worth making.