12/11/2002 letters

[December 11th, 2002] CAN'T WITE-OUT THE CONSTITUTION
I am certainly not always in agreement with David Walker's take on the state of race and racism in America [Bibliofiles, WW, Nov. 27, 2002]. However, neither will I allow myself to utterly invent the principles around the founding of this country, as Rob La Raus appears to in his Dec. 4 letter to the editor.

Mr. La Raus' most glaring mistake was in apparently ignoring the original text of the Constitution in declaring that "neither [the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights] enshrine racism...." Apparently, Mr. La Raus has never read Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 3, since superseded, which read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons...excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." It's something every schoolchild learns, the practice of counting each slave as three-fifths of a person, but apparently he has forgotten about it--along with Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3, which guaranteed extradition for runaway slaves.

Regarding Mr. La Raus' wish to make his points "regardless of if these things [racism and genocide] have happened," I would beg him to reflect on the fact that the principles on which this country was formed does not end with the writing of the Constitution or the ratification of the Bill of Rights. It would be very difficult to claim that the founding of the country did not continue through the era of slavery, and impossible to claim it did not continue through the era of manifest destiny and the Trail of Tears.

It would, in fact, be "hypocritical" or "moronic" (echoing David Walker's judgment) to deny the existence of racism enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, or genocide enshrined in the history books. That today's racial climate is not as glaringly, unrepentantly violent makes such epithets only slightly less justifiable. It is impossible to attack someone's opinion by completely ignoring the facts.

Brandon Thornburg
Southeast Madison Street

ORGAN GRINDER
Seldom in the history of gratuitous, sneering collateral attack have I read anything as vicious and half-baked as Richard Speer's passing reference to "some of the more self-promoting independent art critics in town, whose raisons d'être consist of portraying Portland as the next L.A." ["Getting a Grip on The Organ," WW, Nov. 27, 2002]. Camela Raymond, the subject of the article, was hilariously eager to espouse her similarly provincial views as, mud in hand, she added, "We feel disconnected from the big, glossy art you see in New York, L.A. and Berlin." Raymond's unconscious use of the royal "we" says it all as to her solipsistic worldview. But then, to remove all doubt, Raymond added that Portland is in "an incredibly self-reflective mode right now," which really means that she's in an incredibly self-reflective mode--all of the time. Funniest of Raymond's quotes was the one Speer chose to end the article: "I'm interested in being moved by art." If she means she likes being moved by art, why not say so? Perhaps because being moved by art is a purely hypothetical experience for her.

Neil Anderson
Vancouver, Wash.

VICTORY CHARADE
As Sam Naito's attorney, I was quite surprised to see Nigel Jaquiss' statement in the Nov. 20 article "Cookin' up a Diversion?" that the plaintiffs in the prior litigation "won." In fact, the trial judge threw out most of the claims that plaintiffs asserted (including all claims for mismanagement and employment, as well as plaintiffs' principal prayer, which was to force a corporate breakup). Later, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on substantially all remaining claims (including breach of contract, attorneys' fees and dividends). The only qualification in the Court of Appeals' opinion was that the Company should continue for a five-year period to follow the policy that its Board of Directors adopted in March 1999 to include more direct input from outside directors in dividend recommendations.

It is difficult to see how your newspaper can report a "victory" when the only relief was that H. Naito Corporation should do what it had already agreed to do. Even Pyrrhus did better than that.

Barnes Ellis
Stoel Rives
Southwest 5th Avenue

Nigel Jaquiss responds: With all due respect to Mr. Ellis, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision that Sam Naito's conduct toward his brother's heirs was "oppressive" and that he failed to carry out his fiduciary duties. Moreover, while the plaintiffs got far less than they asked for, Sam Naito only instituted a new dividend policy after Bill's heirs sued him. Having now received nearly $3 million in dividends, the plaintiffs are clearly better off than they were before they filed suit.

GILDING LILLY
I was saddened by the news that the Republican leadership had slipped a rider into the Homeland Security Act to protect Eli Lilly from lawsuits over thimerosol ["Mercury Falling," WW, Nov. 27, 2002]. Perhaps high officials were compelled to favor a key political sponsor, but the spiraling rate of autism fairly shouts for national attention, and this administration--or some other--will need to rise above itself and address the issue. We are dealing with an illness that cannot be swept under our government's lumpy rug.

My own son is an autistic adult (now 32), so I certainly do identify with the plight of families seeking help in a field where care facilities are already stressed out. In my case, my son has been living securely in a special home for many years now, and he is happy, which is all that really matters. I do wish the same for other autism victims, but it won't be easy; it has never been easy, and by the ever-expanding caseload, things may soon get a lot harder. That's why I applaud Portland lawyer Mike Williams, as he is seeking a public forum to resolve a serious health problem.

I myself have no connection with Mr. Williams, but of course I follow all developments on autism, for obvious reasons. We are probably nowhere near discovering a cure because we first have to isolate all possible causes and test them while coping with limited research funds. But since the toxicity of mercury is well-known, Williams is right in pursuing his thimerosol case, as the chemical is a mercury derivative and therefore germane to the etiology of brain disorder. We might also ask how it ever got approved by the FDA. Lobbying, perhaps?

Let us produce every last piece of evidence--without restriction or favoritism--and let Mike Williams have his day in court; but of course, the Republican leadership must first rescind that absurd rider to the Homeland Security Act.

I vaguely recollect a campaign pledge called "Compassionate Conservatism." When I first noticed the phrase, I considered it an oxymoron--and by recent events, it so remains. But of course there is still time for George W. Bush and Friends to prove me wrong.

Gary W. Howe
Northwest Barnes Road