Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in tomletters' LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Friday, May 9th, 2008
4:47 pm	Writing against homophobe tyranny-of-the-majority philosophy again Like most anti-gay “Christian” groups, Marilyn Shannon and her anti-domestic partnership group are ignoring the pro-honesty parts of the Bible (obviously less important than the supposedly anti-gay parts). In campaigning for Measure 36, they realized a majority opposed gay marriage but supported domestic partnerships. This caused them to put forth the message that Measure 36 wasn’t against domestic partnerships, only marriage. Now we have domestic partnerships and these truth-thwarting theocrats say these partnerships violate Measure 36. After 7 years of the Bush administration, is anyone else tired of this constant dishonesty from corrupt evangelicals who think they’re more “moral” than everyone else? The majority shouldn’t be allowed to prevent a minority’s equality. That isn’t democracy but tyranny of the majority. Would hypocrite Shannon stop voting if the majority decided women again shouldn’t have this right? While Measure 36 does violate the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, domestic partnerships violate neither. (Comment on this)
4:47 pm	Letter to Time on the Lawrence King hate crime murder Leave it to the mainstream media to finally include gay voices- but only conservative and libertarian ones of course. As usual, no liberal views are allowed. John Cloud's article seemed written to exploit a murder to push the idea that gay kids have it easy and therefore push the libertarian ideal of doing nothing about it. God forbid he stop being a libertarian hack for long enough to write an article focused on getting justice for this and other gay teens instead. Cloud and I both know that hate crimes laws don't prosecute thoughts, only actions. He (and Time as a whole,as well as the whole corporate media) are just too biased towards conservatism and libertarianism to ever admit this. Hate crimes fit the very definition of terrorism- using violence to force another group of people to conform to your political/religious objective. The MSM, libertarians, and conservatives are so supportive of the war on terror- as long as this means life sentences for lefties who vandalize lumber equipment while causing no bodily harm. They are certainly hypocrites for not supporting laws making hate crime terrorism more punishable than regular assault or murder charges. (Comment on this)
4:33 pm	A bunch of letters that didn't get published Mike's letter to the Oregonian on their suggestion that locals use their money to restore an old church tower that the congregation can't afford: Nonprofits throughout the Portland area and across the country are barely able to maintain their critical services, and people in desperate need of help are enduring untold suffering as they are turned away by overburdened charities. And the Oregonian asks us to contribute to rebuild a church. Those poor Christians didn't maintain their building and it rotted away, and now it's up to us as a community to come to their rescue. Why? If my father hired a famous architect to build a house for our family 50 years ago, and we failed to maintain the house and it rotted away, would the Oregonian send alarms through the community to help us? What if the building belonged to the Church of Scientology? My guess is the Oregonian editorial board can't contain their sympathy for well-meaning but foolish fellow white anglo-saxon Protestants. Shame on you. Charity dollars are extremely scarce right now, and it is the height of absurdity to suggest they should be used to rescue a bunch of old fools from their stupid choices. The congregation should have maintained their structure, but they chose not to. They should bear the burden of their mistakes alone. The city is forcing them to rebuild their structure so it is probably going to get rebuilt anyway. If they do go bankrupt, perhaps there is a role for charity to preserve the historic structure. Until then, please donate to worthy causes instead. ----------------------------------------------------- Mike's letter to the O after someone outraged at Elliot Spitzer wrote in: Just wanted to thank Margaret C. Hamilton, for her advice to wronged spouses (Letters, March 14, 2008). Of course, it is obvious to everyone that no marriage in the world could have foundations strong enough to withstand sexual infidelity, which everyone agrees is the worst offense imaginable. And, there really is far too much forgiveness in this world, and not nearly enough blind vengeance, especially in cases of divorce. Far too many divorces are characterized by kindness and calm, rational decisions about what's best for everyone involved, what's best for the children. I just want to join Ms. Hamilton in her call for more would-be former spouses to embrace their rage, and spend their family's nest eggs on lawyers in crazed bids to punish each other as much as possible. Maybe if divorces were more painful, married people would think twice about indulging their extramarital sexual urges. _________________________________________________________ My letter about the possible replacement I-5 bridge over the Columbia and who should pay for it: In building a huge new bridge over I-5, Oregonians will be stuck with billions of dollars of debt for generations. And what will we gain? Oregonians have few reasons to ever cross the river, but on those rare occasions when we do, we will experience fewer delays. We will perhaps see more smiles from our coworkers, as the ones who commute to Clark County will not be so frustrated all the time. In addition, we will indirectly enjoy a more efficient marketplace, as truckers will not be delayed so much at the Columbia – they won’t have to seek alternate routes to avoid commuter traffic. Of course, easier commuting into Clark County will depress property values in the rest of the Portland area. And encouraging more folks to commute by car to work will snarl Portland roads with more traffic, spewing more pollution into our air. After considering the costs and benefits, I have a hard time understanding why taxpayers in Oregon and the Portland metro area should contribute anything more than goodwill to the Columbia River Crossing project. We have virtually nothing to gain. We could live quite happily with no bridge there at all. I do sympathize with the griping from Clark County decrying the ideas and input of the Portland City Council and other representatives of Oregonians. Oregonians really have no business weighing in on the Columbia River Crossing, because Oregonians aren’t really going to use the span anyway. Let Clark County residents decide what to do about their bridge, and let them pay for it too. _____________________________________________________________ I talk back to the Oregonian's pathetic GOP hack DAvid Reinhard about the real media bias. Sigh, I keep doing this but he'll never learn. You can't teach an old turd new realizations. Shamelessly disingenuous GOP hack David Reinhard, in pretentiously poo-pooing the Democratic primary battle, claims that at least the Republican primary was about issues. What issues? The issue of who would most hatefully persecute gays? Who would torture the most random citizens not formally accused of crimes? Who would prolong the dishonest war longest in spite of its human and financial cost? Who could best accelerate deathly climate change? Who would enforce the longest jail sentence for looking at the flag wrong? Even if Reinhard was right, who’s fault is it that democrats have to spend so much time defending themselves against false charges of elitism (which John “I have 8 houses” McCain never has to do) and scurrilous charges about how they might have once met someone controversial without distancing themselves enough? Wouldn’t the fault lie with the dishonest conservative spinmeisters (like Reinhard) who dominate the media? __________________________________________________ What I wrote to stupid old fuddy duddy dummy State Sen. Gary George of wine country (whine country for him). Giving him a taste of his own double standard medicine after his anti-gay rant. An edited version of this was published as a letter in Just Out. Senator George- Please shut up about your wife and the fact that you have one. You have a different sexuality than I do, so according to your own logic, I should be able to demand that you never talk of your love life or partner. And that if you ever do, I should be able to introduce legislation making you a second class citizen, simply to punish you. Why? Because I don't want to hear about your wife or your love life or the fact that you are attracted to women. And what I do and don't want to hear about should determine public policy. Just like how you feel. So, how does your own medicine taste? You are the one who wants your own preferences and tastes to determine who is a first or second class citizen- sounds like you are the one asking for special rights. Every time you mention having a wife or anything else about your love life, all I can think is "Good God, Gary, save these morbid sexual details for the pervert channel!" I'm sure the majority of normal healthy Oregonians don't want to hear about your love life or imagine you having sex (I mean, just look in the mirror and you will know why.). Also, since your son Sen. Larry George is a product of your heterosexual marriage you, should not mention him in public either. This shouldn't be a big deal; I mean he isn't anything to brag about (except to heartless developers who want to turn the Oregon countryside into Orange County or Houston, since Larry has made this his life's work). Don't want to follow my demands? Well, obviously you are the immature one. So just grow up already. You look way too old and haggard to be acting so immaturely. _________________________________________________ Letter about the censoring of the gay-related play at the Sherwood schools: The Sherwood situation regarding the play “Higher Groud” is typical. Whenever kids deal with the subject of gayness, prejudiced parents complain saying kids are too young for sexual material. These parents assume that any talk of gays equals discussing dirty sexual details. These parents reduce gays to nothing but sex. This shows how education on this is needed. Heterosexual kids and adults are always allowed to openly date, discuss the fact that they are attracted to the opposite sex, and discuss who they are attracted to. When gays do the same thing, it’s considered licentious sex talk. Such double standards cause the bullying the play addresses. Principal Anna Pittioni said the play “exceeds the maturity” of many students. However it was the typically skittish and prejudiced adult conservatives who couldn’t handle the play, while the more liberal, open-minded student population was mature enough for “controversial” issues like gays being human. _______________________________________________ Another letter (honestly Reinhard you are so stupid): David Reinhard is warning us not to nominate the inspiring figure who is turning a whole new generation Democratic and reversing the country’s cynicism. He instead wants us to nominate an uncharismatic candidate that many people have been brainwashed against for 16 years- a candidate who has a dubious 50 + 1 strategy for winning the election. Is it any surprise that transparent GOP hack Reinhard is trying to scare us into nominating Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama? Does anyone really think he has the Democrats best interest at heart? Reinhard sensationally uses Tony Rezko and the Canada-NAFTA misunderstanding as reasons not to vote for Obama. The Canadian government has already clarified that Obama did not make the statement he was accused of. And they have been trying to find a sensational connection between Obama and his indicted neighbor Tony Rezko for months without finding anything. But this doesn’t keep Reinhard from trotting it out as some supposed scandal- even after eight years of Reinhard and other pundits letting the Republicans off the hook for all of the worst corruption in this country’s history. Don’t let David Reinhard (or the other GOP hack pundits who dominate the media) fool you. Obama represents an incredible and inspiring opportunity for Democrats to win the country over. Think Ronald Reagan- but right on the issues, instead of inspiring but wrong. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008
2:13 pm	Letter against anti-civil rights acts by GOP judge, homophobes In discussing the activist judge’s ruling against enacting civil unions, Julie Epple claimed Measure 36 (which was worded to only address marriage) was supposed to ban civil unions. She uses her misperception to pretend she was the victim when the legislature passed civil unions, claiming her vote “didn’t count”. This is despite that neither civil unions nor gay marriage would affect her, and despite that everyone should have equality whether or not the majority wants it for some minorities. She wrongfully whines about her vote not counting, then says she opposes gay equality because of “Christian” values. Should only Christians have rights? She laughably fears the “can of worms” civil unions would supposedly open, while flaunting her own opposition to the constitution’s church-state separation. It seems she only wants Christians’ votes to count. These right-wing “Christians” are not only supporting injustice and subverting American values. They are also major hypocrites. (Comment on this)
Friday, December 14th, 2007
2:01 pm	Unpublished Letter to Bee- Sacramento Homophobes being idiotic again Kathy Baker says the majority has already voted against gay marriage, and that since this reflects her view we should never debate it or vote on it again. In the same series of letters, Chuck Miller (perhaps realizing the trend towards a majority supporting gay rights) speaks against gay rights by saying “majority rules” should not be a basis for deciding them. As is typical for the conservative right, these letterwriters are disingenuously using both sides of the coin to grasp at straws to support their bigoted, un-American arguments against legal equality. John Costello justifies his anti-gay views by saying he follows “the teachings of Jesus Christ on this issue”, despite that in the Bible Jesus never mentions homosexuality (although he does condemn divorce)- just more typical right-wing dishonesty and/or ignorance on the part of these letterwriters. Miller asks “If we are going to replace the Judeo-Christian tradition, what are we going to replace it with?” How about replacing it with truth, logic, kindness, and the ethic of letting people have any freedom as long as it does not hurt others? These decent American values are something the conservative version of Christianity seems to sorely lack. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 14th, 2007
3:42 pm	Mike's letter to Oregonian, not published- Keep vote by mail Another election day is upon us, and another kook waxes nostalgic for the old fashioned polling places which have been replaced in Oregon by the far superior vote by mail system (When democracy arrives in the mail, Nov 6th). Blackwood claims to ?know? all of the benefits of vote by mail: ?convenience, increased turnout? lower costs per election?, but he?s unconvinced by these obvious, tangible benefits. No, Blackwood is persuaded that the rituals of old are more important than superficial things like voter participation and cost efficiency. Voter turnout in Oregon reaches levels unheard-of in other states, but Blackwood wants us to return to the method we used in his romantic youth, regardless of the consequences. He does not notice or care about all of the problems, from the 2000 Florida fiasco to the long lines at polling places in minority neighborhoods in Ohio in 2004. He certainly is not troubled by the dramatically reduced voter participation which would accompany a return to the old method, and the fact that important decisions would be made by a smaller and less representative group of citizens. Thank God that most Oregonians are pragmatists, and care more about the reality of democracy than silly nostalgic hand-wringing. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007
8:53 am	Letter against anti-health care selfish guy Derrick Teal Okay I don't think this will be in the O at this point so I'll put it in here. --------------------- Derrick Teal used VA medical center waits to claim all government health care is bad. For years conservatives have cut veterans’ and other medical services (while asserting only conservatives support the troops), in part to cripple these systems and “prove” conservatives “right”. There aren’t months-long waits in other industrialized countries to just get health care as conservatives claim. And even among insured Americans, coverage leaves individuals paying for many things still not covered (enduring financial ruin). Teal insinuates insurance is a “choice” and that if people are sick or worried they should make this choice even if it means forgoing basic necessities. It shouldn’t be this way for hardworking people in a rich country, especially while CEOs’ and heirs’ taxes get cut by anti-health care conservatives. I suggest Teal rent Sicko, and ignore the unfactual proclamations of the corporate media regarding this film. Contrary to the nitpicking, disingenuous claims of the Oregonian and others, this movie presented the truth about both the ease and good service of other countries’ health systems, as well as the fallacy that America’s system works for the insured. (Comment on this)
8:52 am	My response to the Oregonian's shallow, disingenuous, apologistic anti-impeach editorial President Bush has broken FISA law, violated the constitution in countless ways, committed election fraud, and lied us into a war. It is specifically felonious for Presidents to use intelligence dishonestly, and Bush has already been proven to have done so to start this war. But the Oregonian’s apologist suits think none of Bush’s transgressions warrant a second thought. Their logic is, “Impeachment won’t happen because it shouldn’t happen because people aren’t interested in it, and that’s why weren’t not interested in it. So obviously pro-impeachment types are the crazy ones.” Huh? The Oregonian’s bigoted assertion that only San Francisco and Portland liberals are pro-impeachment is unsupported by evidence, as demonstrated by pro-impeachment activities around America from small-town councils to Midwestern legislatures. The Oregonian disingenuously compares pro-impeachment forces with Republicans trying to impeach President Clinton over sex, illogically claiming that impeaching Bush over important things would look just as bad. (Comment on this)
8:48 am	Responding to Jim Lerman's naive letter on media balance Jim Lerman (letters, 7/13/07) thinks that the lack of political balance in mass media, especially radio, is not a problem, and that people concerned about it should just change the channel. He asserts that the programs on the radio are there because people listen and therefore advertisers pay. Fact is it is not always advertisers, but often wealthy partisan donors that fund radio content and therefore determine the content choices we have. A look at the history of right-wing talkers reveals the truth: Limbaugh could never have built his empire without the rich partisan donors who, for years, paid stations to carry his show despite low ratings and huge losses. His show was artificially pumped up by this undeserved syndication, and his show did not turn a profit for years. Many other similar cases demonstrate that the imbalance in our mass media has been carefully orchestrated by rich partisans hoping to control our national debates. It is not just a result of market forces. Furthermore, while several corporations currently have complete control over the airwaves, the truth is the airwaves belong to the people. Not long ago, broadcasters had to promise to serve the public good in return for their use of the public airwaves, and that included making sure their content was politically balanced. This common sense rule was known as the fairness doctrine. It is not about the government telling us what we should or should not listen to. It is about the people wisely protecting the national debate from being hijacked by wealthy partisans. The Republicans in Congress know this, but they are terrified of a fair debate. They will do anything to make sure their friends in the media can maintain the imbalanced status quo -- their political lives depend on it. (Comment on this)
8:46 am	Mike's very good op-ed on Larry Craig- thinking outside the media simpleton box.... ....and actually addressing the homophobia beneath it all. ---------------------------- As long as America’s leaders and parents continue to tell their children that being gay is a shameful thing, some children will grow up believing it, and we will continue to have sad closet-cases living double lives like poor Senator Craig. Maybe Craig is gay, maybe he’s bisexual – but Craig couldn’t stand to openly live as God made him. He couldn’t stand the disapproval of his friends, family, and constituents. Instead, he was compelled to pretend to be straight his whole life in order to win society’s approval. We should recognize that Craig’s recent errors of judgment are of a piece with his decades of sexual repression, which is ultimately all the fault of religious conservatives and other narrow-minded moralists who spread untrue, bigoted, homophobic messages, causing gay children to grow up into basket cases like Craig. Since sexual orientation cannot be ignored or swept under the rug, Craig couldn’t get away from his – just like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley couldn’t run away from theirs. When you try to sweep sexual orientation under the rug, it rears its head somewhere else. Any straight person who judges behavior like Craig’s should try to either be celibate their whole lives or have sex with those they aren’t attracted to their whole lives, with no one to talk to about their problems. I doubt they would wind up with a normal sex life either. Craig was able to maintain the appearance of straight propriety for decades, but there were moments of weak will when he just could not stop himself from seeking sex with men. If he had only accepted himself the way God made him, it’s likely he would have been able to have normal , healthy, loving sex with men. Same goes for Haggard and Foley. So far, the angle being focused on in this feeding frenzy is how Craig handled the revelations surrounding the guilty plea. The Oregonian 8/30/07 : “But for Senator Craig, this sad episode has turned into such a dismaying display of denial and bad judgment that it raises questions beyond anybody’s voting record.” I would like to ask the Oregonian: What exactly is the proper way to tell America that you have been repressing your natural sexuality for decades but no matter how hard you tried you just couldn’t do it? Extra credit if you address the likelihood that Craig still believes he can be straight if only he tries hard enough, a damaging lie that is still being spread by so many members of his own party. I submit that any judgment errors Craig may have made in his attempts to save his political career pale in comparison to his attempts over his life to repress his sexuality. And the people who deserve public scorn are not the sad closet cases trying to explain away the gay – they deserve our pity. Craig’s story has played out over and over again, and sadly will play many times over still. The media acts like Craig’s restroom antics are so much more offensive than how he and millions of others spend their lives in a lonely closet, and therefore only focuses on these salacious acts. But the anguish, loneliness, and self-hatred people like Craig endure their whole lives due to the right-wing’s homophobia is infinitely more destructive, offensive, and unhealthy than the pathetic sex acts in restrooms or elsewhere that they are compelled to use as a desperate escape. Public disapproval of homosexuality is the cause of all this suffering, and many more lives will be ruined as long as narrow-minded people continue to shame gays for being themselves. (Comment on this)
8:45 am	More bias from the Oregonian- re traitor Gonzales This one also by Mike ------------- The Oregonian's news analysis in "Senators tie easy confirmation to documents' release", Tues Sept 18, observes that Alberto Gonzales resigned last month "under withering attacks from Democrats on Capitol Hill," and also mentions that Gonzales was a person "whom many Democrats regarded as a crony of the president". It is irresponsible and absurd to pretend it was only Democrats who attacked Gonzales, only Democrats who regarded Gonzales a crony. Gonzales' crimes in office were as innumerable as they were egregious. Under Gonzales the Justice Department was used as the Gestapo arm of the Republican party, arresting and harassing innocent citizens simply for being Democrats. Under Gonzales, US Attorneys prosecuted Democrats with trumped up charges and handed down spurious indictments immediately before elections in order to manipulate elections for Republican partisan gain, in direct contradiction to established policy. Under Gonzales, the Justice department killed numerous corruption investigations of corrupt Republicans. Using the Justice department as the Republican party Gestapo was only possible because Gonzales was a crony. If Gonzales had an independent bone in his body, he would have seen that his duty as America's top law enforcement official was actually to enforce the law, not help his friend Bush get away with in the most illegal behaivor possible. In fact, Gonzales was as much an example of cronyism as ever has existed in American politics. But you pretend it's a matter of debate? Gonzales engaged in criminal behavior and faked memory lapses in order to avoid being held accountable, and you pretend all the Capitol Hill Republicans approved? Fact is, multiple Republicans, including our own senator, attacked Gonzales. If the Oregonian can take such clear facts, with such substantial implications for the health of our democracy, and pretend the truth of the matter is obscured by he-saids and she-saids, this leaves readers questioning your credibility as a source of news and analysis. It is also an incredible disservice to our Democracy. Shame on you. (Comment on this)
8:42 am	Evil David Reinhard This one is by Mike about the evil, dishonest Oregonian columnist David Reinhard, who is nothing but an arrogant, smirking, evil republican hack. -------- I don't know if Reinhard actually believes the lies he told in his column today on Limbaugh. He so often goes to such extremes to mislead his readers I figure he can't always believe what he writes. But as he may know, the context he cites is incomplete, and if he were to read the full transcript he would see that Limbaugh said exactly what liberals accuse him of saying. I know it's hard to believe Limbaugh might say something that isn't politically correct, but it's true. But no matter. Reinhard's columns are a constant embarrassment to the paper and to the GOP. His dishonesty and desperate attempts to spin for his guys are so obvious and pathetic that the credibility of the whole newspaper is diminished. That's good for progressives, because the public is learning to seek out alternatives to biased corporate news reporting. How is your circulation doing, by the way? Well David, keep making conservatives look like idiots, it will help make Oregon and America even more progressive. Maybe some day, if you keep going, even poor kids will get health care when they're sick, corporations might start paying their fair share of taxes, and gay couples might get equality under the law. I hope you live long enough to see all your nightmares come true. As these progressive changes happen, as I celebrate the uplifting of mankind, I will take just a moment to relish the suffering of liars-for-hire like you. ------------------------------------------- (Comment on this)
Monday, September 24th, 2007
4:01 pm	Recent letters, not published in their papers But good of course. -------------------- USA Today (the happy face Katie Couric of the print world) had a dumb "bipartisan" editorial featuring Cal Thomas and some DLCish Democratic douche who is his friend, talking about how the blogs and others are making it so things aren't civil and bipartisan and flexible anymore. As if we all just got up one day and decided to be that way- independent of any anti-constitution extremism being forced on us by the GOP. Here is the letter: This editorial is an example of how the corporate >> media never thought a lack of compromise was the >> problem during the past 20 years, when the >> Republicans >> kept moving further right, the Democrats always >> compromised, and the country kept moving further to >> the right as a result. >> >> As soon as the Democrats finally realized to what an >> extreme right-wing, anti-Democratic, >> unconstitutional >> place the Republicans were taking the country and >> started standing up for American principles, the >> corporate media oh-so-coincidentally started >> promoting >> compromise. >> >> The media thinks compromise is more important than >> either the constitution or the will of the people. >> According to this article's logic, Democrats should >> be >> more pro-war and compromise even more with the >> Republicans on this issue, even though the American >> people are to the left of both parties on this issue >> (and others) and want us out of the war. When the >> Republicans want to take away habeus corpus, the >> rights to privacy and free speech, and other >> constitutional guarantees, the problem according to >> USA Today is that the Democrats aren't open enough >> to >> these ideas. How narrow minded of these Democrats, >> thinking the constitution shouldn't be compromised >> for >> the sake of compromise! >> >> Thank goodness for the liberal blogs and others who >> finally demanded that Democrats no longer follow the >> corporate media's demands to always compromise with >> the Republican's earth-destroying, unconstitutional, >> undemocratic, warmongering extremism. In normal >> times >> compromise is a good thing. But thanks to >> Republican >> extremism, these are not normal times. --------------------------------------------- Here are two letters to the Oregonian: 1- Since OPB will now not host Ira Glass at the actively anti-gay New Hope Community Church, I’m sure you’ll get lots of letters from indignant evangelical conservatives claiming that this means anti-gay Christians are being discriminated against. Yeah, and if OPB had refused to host a speaker at the Ku Klux Klan meeting hall, could the Klan claim they are the real victims of discrimination here? Bigotry is bigotry, and we need to get rid of the idea that homophobia is more acceptable than other bigotry. It is not intolerant to exclude the intolerant. To include them (or to patronize their venues where not everyone is welcome) is to send a message that their arbitrary intolerance of certain groups of people is okay, when it is not. 2- The Oregonian self-servingly claims “there are people of all sexual orientations on all sides of the gay marriage argument.” Why of course! The number of gay people who are speaking out against creating equality in marriage law for gays is almost as many as the number of gays on the pro-gay marriage side! This little lie helps the Oregonian and other opponents of full equality convince themselves they’re not bigoted. “Some gays oppose gay marriage too, so I’m not being anti-gay. I’m a moderate.” It’s possible if the Oregonian worked hard enough they could find someone somewhere claiming to be gay and claiming to oppose gay marriage -- just like they could find some ultra-fundamentalist woman saying women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. While there surely are gays who can’t admit to themselves they’re gay who spout conservative ideologies, it’s extremely dishonest to count them as gays against gay marriage. -------------------------------------------------------- (Comment on this)
Friday, July 20th, 2007
8:05 am	Mike's letter to Oregonian in June, not published Why is it that The Oregonian and most other mainstream news outlets have carefully avoided the word "filibuster" when reporting about Republican moves to block the "no confidence" vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales? The Republicans could not win the vote because a majority of Senators have no confidence in Gonzales, so the Republicans filibustered the no confidence vote. Standing by Bush and protecting his crony Attorney General was so important to Senate Republicans that they had to resort to the filibuster. But you wouldn't know that by reading The Oregonian. Apparently, The Oregonian only uses scary, weird words like filibuster to describe things that Democrats do. (Comment on this)
Monday, July 16th, 2007
11:40 am	Mike's letter recently in Oregonian The Oregonian and others fault Sicko for being "one-sided". That criticism might make sense if the "side" presented in Sicko had ever reached the national conversation before. As the Oregonian knows, corporate-run media has until now prevented the shocking stories Moore reveals from ever being told to Americans. Without Sicko, no one would have ever heard about the girl who died after an emergency room followed the orders of her insurance company not to treat her. If Moore's film is "one-sided", one has to ask -- why has this side of the story been hidden from Americans? Why didn't we ever hear about that little girl? Why do most people think Europeans and Canadians all hate their healthcare system, when the truth is they love it and they are much healthier than we are by any scientific standard (while paying far less for their healthcare)? Why is it that the only opinions Americans see voiced in the media seem to support the notion that we should all keep paying corporate fat-cats to make our medical decisions for us? Of course, the Oregonian and other corporate-boosters have been nitpicking and badmouthing the film: 'Oh, it's so one-sided that Moore didn't let the corporate fat-cats' spokespeople have a voice in the film!' Sicko is so powerful because it tells the other side of the story, and the corporate fat-cats will do whatever they can to keep you from seeing it. When the other side of the story is told, the debate is over. Nobody thinks our current system is good, and once people realize there is an alternative that has been working for decades in most other industrialized countries, nationalized healthcare will be an American reality. (Comment on this)
Thursday, July 12th, 2007
9:01 am	Letters on fairness doctrine/media consolidation; one published I recently wrote two letters in response to two different Oregonian articles on the fairness doctrine/media consolidation issue. The first one below wasn't published, the second was. --------------------------------------------------------- Rich Lowry ridiculously asserts that there aren’t talented liberals to do talk radio. Would conservatives have to whine constantly about “liberal Hollywood” if all talent was conservative? There are few liberal radio (and television) programs because the media is controlled by several large conservative corporations, including Clear Channel, which has bought many Air America stations while suspiciously failing to give many anything but a weak, unclear signal. Lowry is hypocritical for questioning the obvious constitutionality of the previously longstanding Fairness Doctrine, since our conservative government is destroying our constitution every day. Lowry thinks media conglomerates’ desire to air only conservatism trumps citizens’ basic right to be well-informed. What would really threaten conservative airwaves dominance would be a law that you can’t lie on the air, which major conservative voices constantly do. But I can see why conservatives do it- it would be hard to justify their views with actual facts. ------------------------------------------- This letter responds to the corporate-owned Oregonian’s unsurprisingly slanted article on restoring fariness doctrine. The conglomerates that now dominate the media, claim conservatism is simply more popular and that only the market has decided and should decide what is aired. The cancellation of popular liberal shows (incluing Phil Donahue’s show, MSNBC’s highest rated at the time) shows this isn’t true. Even if it was, a well-informed populace is more important than market ideology or profits. Our current situation not only misinforms people by showing only one side, it misinforms them by allowing conservatives to get away with endless numbers of lies on air. (Liberals understandably do better using facts to support their views.) As conservative talkers have bragged, conservatives wouldn’t have gotten elected these last 20 years without them. Observing conservative policies’ results, perhaps this is argument enough to say something is wrong about our current unregulated mass media. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 5th, 2007
10:16 am	This was published in the Sunday Oregonian, June 3, 2007. Except they took out the last clause of the last sentence, which was really the best part. -------------------------------------------------------------------- According to Susan Nielsen’s logic, eco-saboteurs’ actions are non-sensical because people have changed their ways in response to environmental crises. If this were true, wouldn’t there no longer be SUVs or factory farms around to sabotage? Nielsen should be able to find reasons to disagree with saboteurs’ methods without pretending the changes needed to save the environment have happened or are guaranteed to. The pointless actions of the saboteurs come about because it is so hard to figure out what to do to stop the current madness and allow future generations to survive. I credit Nielsen for observing that saboteurs, who physically harmed nobody, shouldn’t be given harsher sentences than murderers. I am tired of the Republicans’ and corporate media’s biased framing of the terrorism issue, as they claim environmentalist vandals who harm no people are “terrorists”, while never calling violent conservatives like gay bashers and abortion clinic bombers terrorists. (Comment on this)
Friday, June 1st, 2007
8:13 am	Letter about homophobes tyranny of majority This is a letter that didn't get published in the Oregonian where I discussed the anti-democratic ideals and methods of the state's homophobes in response to the passage of two gay-rights bills. ----------------------------------------------- The article discusses possible ballot measures to repeal Oregon’s new gay-rights laws. Measure 36 and these possible new measures shouldn’t be allowed. The majority shouldn’t be able to vote minorities’ rights away. That’s not democracy, but tyranny of the majority. Majorities in the recent past opposed interracial marriage and women’s equality. Would those supporting these measures say that ballot measures should have decided the fate of those issues then? Mary Lee Brady justifies her anti-equality position by saying the new laws are “contrary to God’s word...” The truth is that the constitution mandates church-state separation. Therefore it forbids anything but equality for gays because the only way to justify inequality is via such arbitrary, personal religious beliefs. The facts show the founding fathers clearly wanted non-sectarian government. The idea that they wanted a state based on right-wing Christians’ views is an oft-repeated revisionist lie used to justify laws like Measure 36. (Comment on this)
Thursday, April 26th, 2007
4:33 pm	Unpublished letters Here is a letter I sent to Willamette Week about a really contrived and counterproductive article they did. The premise of the article was that a WW reporter went to the big peace rally with pro-war signs, so that when he got justifiably verbally slammed by people on the sensible anti-war side the WW could do an article about how supposedly intolerant liberals were for not pretending to agree with him and for not congratulating him for expressing an obviously stupid opinion. WW an alternative paper to the MSM? Not. Here is the letter: -------------------------------------------- I’m sure the mainstream media pundits loved James Pitkin’s article about how intolerant peace demonstrators are. If he keeps ignoring real issues and continues to promote the meme that angry liberals are a bigger problem than the Republican ruination of our world, he’ll get a gig as a major talking head in no time. Is Pitkin denying that many pro-war, pro-Bush Americans are brainwashed by right-wing media? Is he denying that most should be better informed? In what other ways does he think it is intolerant to non-violently tell truths people don’t want to hear? Is the “intolerance” of people rightfully angry at those supporting mass murder really the most story material? What is his point in doing this if not to further the media’s lie that liberals who call a spade a spade are inherently more intolerant than right-wingers who support torture and unjust war, steal elections, and pass laws saying I can’t marry my partner? Is it really intolerant to be verbally angry at people supporting things that are obviously horrid, antisocial, and misguided? Does this compare to the right-wing’s methods of intolerance such as violence, passing laws against free speech and other rights, and legislating inequality? I hope next time the NAACP has a rally in Portland, Pitkin is unhypocritical enough to attend wearing a klan outfit. Then he can write an article decrying any “intolerant” liberals who have the audacity to insult him and to call a spade a spade about his ignorance. ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- Here is a letter to the Oregonian from my partner Mike that calls a spade a spade about their resident conservative columnist, the unoriginal, Rove-talking-point-spewing, obsessively anti-gay David Reinhard the blowhard. ----------------- David Reinhard is the only reason why I do not subscribe to the Oregonian. It makes me so angry that Portland’s only daily newspaper continues to prop him up year after year. Reinhard is corrupt. He recycles every right wing talking point, regardless of how misleading or false, saying anything to help his precious Republicans. Reinhard’s “views” are often so absurd and so obviously false that it becomes clear he is simply a mouthpiece for the rich and powerful. Every day in every way he tries to bamboozle readers into believing the lies that make the rich richer. Of course newspapers have an obligation to present “both” sides, so it is reasonable for you to include conservative voices. However, you also have an obligation to print the work of writers who honestly believe what they’ve written, and not to print the work of writers who actively and obviously work to manipulate, mislead, and misinform readers. Clearly, in the current media landscape, it can be difficult to find conservative voices who actually do believe what they are saying. Tools like Reinhard account for most of what is available in the way of conservative opinion. That is no excuse. If there are no honest conservative writers in Oregon, printing no conservative opinion would be far better than printing Reinhard’s dishonest nonsense. Your continued association with Reinhard also strikes a huge blow against your credibility as a newspaper. Please Oregonian, please for your own good and for the good of our community, stop this immoral behavior. Stop helping Reinhard misinform Oregon. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 25th, 2007
1:54 pm	Letter in Oregonian This letter is about local greedy furrier family the Schumachers and their self-serving, insidious failure to face reality and not punish others for their sins and failures. Most of this letter was in the Oregonian. --------------------------------------------- The sore loser Schumachers are suing the City and activists over their own business failures. Their assertions that police didn’t do enough to stop activists is ridiculous. This is the same police force that is constantly called out for overuse of force (sometimes causing death) against so many Portlanders from demonstrators to black drivers to harmless developmentally disabled people. But we are supposed to believe the police were illegally soft on these particular protesters? Even if activists engaged and followed customers, this is free speech. Even if some activists crossed lines occasionally, how is this the responsibility of law-abiding advocacy groups or police? There’s a long tradition of individual civil disobedience in this country – individuals who break laws are still punished. Why can’t the Schumachers face that their products have unpleasant baggage, and that the activists, who have every right to speak about it, successfully persuaded Portlanders to avoid fur? (Comment on this)