LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[December 15th, 2004] WOMAN ON TOP?

My jaw dropped in disbelief when I read that one politico looking to "get your phone calls returned" said of Julia Brim-Edwards, "it doesn't hurt when you're sleeping with the guy who holds the state's purse strings" ["The Power List," WW, Dec. 8, 2004].

Seriously? So none of her accomplishments are attributed to her hard work, only to the fact that she married "well"? Some Power List.

Julia M. Heinzmann
Northeast Junior Street

DIEBOLD AT WW

Both Liz Kaufman and Lisa Grove are clearly among the Top 5 most powerful women in Portland ["The Power List," WW, Dec. 8, 2004]. I can live with the idea that an uninformed electorate put Liz only in a tie for 10th. But given their similar profiles, it is not credible that the same electorate that gave Liz that ranking left Lisa out of the top 20 altogether.

It is evident that Willamette Week used Diebold machines to tally the results. I demand a recount, or, if no paper records are available, a special prosecutor.

Steve Novick
Southeast Nehalem Street

Editor's Note: The writer, a Portland political watchdog, is a personal friend and shameless admirer of both Grove and Kaufman.

HOLIDAY JEER

Perhaps I should apologize for spoiling the Nose's holiday spirit ["Of Fur and Foie," Dec. 1, 2004]. After all, by organizing my fellow "blowhards" for an anti-fur march, In Defense of Animals robbed him of a few precious shopping minutes. He would have readers believe that animal activists have no love left over for people, claiming we stepped over homeless folks in our righteous path. He must be referring to the homeless couple who recently took shelter for six weeks in IDA's office.

'Tis the season to be jolly. But does that mean we completely ignore the 40 million fur-bearing critters suffering for Lady Schnozzington's right to don her gay apparel? Apparently the skin off the Nose's nose is the only skin that matters. He might reconsider after catching a whiff of the musky stench of hundreds of buckets brimming with fox urine--collected, bottled and sold to hunters for cover scent. Can you believe blood lust so strong someone would dab on urine like Chanel No. 5? And we're the fanatics?!

I worked undercover on Dan Aeschelman's fox farm, documenting the anal electrocution of 500 foxes. This death is unimaginably cruel, but unfortunately for these wild animals, the misery of staying alive, confined and crazy seemed an even worse option. Aeschelman often wouldn't even offer his captives water, leaving hundreds of foxes dying of thirst. See, dehydration produces more concentrated urine and leaves more time to shorten the cages to cram more in the barn. In his words, "If one dies, that's one less I have to kill."

There I go again, ruining the visions of sugarplums. No fa-la-la-la-la found in the force-feeding of fowl to get foie gras, a pâté made from diseased liver. Maybe viewing the undercover footage from both U.S. farms producing this delicacy would soothe the Nose's inflamed sinuses? These ducks are so ill, weak and overweight they can't resist against the rats eating them alive. Fifteen countries and California banned this abusive practice, but we're "bullies" for peacefully educating diners? I doubt dumping one dish is going to make local restaurants go belly-up.

Sorry, Nose, the booger's on your face this time.

Matt Rossell
Northwest Outreach Coordinator
In Defense of Animals
Northeast 30th Avenue

NOSE FULL OF PATÉ

Just writing because I'm curious why WW (a paper that I once thought was halfway progressive) would publish such an atrocious opinion column ["The Nose," Dec. 1, 2004]. How can such an ignorant person get a whole page in WW to share his misconceived, outdated opinion?

Several items mentioned in the article were completely untrue, such as: how the protesters "stepped over homeless people on their way to their righteous cause." So, let me get this straight, if people care about animals then they must NOT care about people? Take note--most animal-rightists are also into human/civil rights.

And regarding how the protesters must be "secretly lobbying for Bush cabinet jobs": Why would they be lobbying for a government who labels them as "terrorists" as well as making it a felony to disturb any business that profits from torturing/killing animals (see the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act")?

I too witnessed the anti-fur protest. However, I saw it as a group of compassionate individuals trying to alert the public that there might just be something unethical about anally electrocuting 40 fur-bearing animals to make one fur coat.

Additionally, the Nose described the foie gras campaign as if animal-rights activists were trying to close down restaurants that serve the item. Untrue--they are merely asking these chefs to take foie gras off their menus. Besides, think about it for a second before you criticize: Is it really worth it to shove a pole down the throat of a living, feeling creature simply to satisfy the taste buds of a few rich snobs?

Nose, you should really educate yourself before you write your next anti-animal-rights article. There's a lot you don't know!

Doreen Norton
Northeast 16th Avenue

LIVER AND LET LIVER

I just had to write in to say kudos to the Nose. I loved his Dec. 1 article. I get sick of self-righteous hypocrites who are uninformed and bored. I don't eat veal (though I think other people have the prerogative, and I think they should be educated on what they are eating first), I recycle, and I have been accused of being a tree hugger, but in France or occasionally at a fancy dinner, I like to indulge in foie gras.

There is so much I would like to comment on, but you said it so well already. I just had to nod my head in support. And it must be said that "protesters" like this almost always accomplish looking like fools, and I think your article pointed this out well.

Katie Baccellieri
Northwest Hoyt Street

EXTINCTION OF THE SPECIOUS

To the Nose: Amazingly, I think the substance of your Dec. 1 article was more obnoxious than the style. Fine, it's a tongue-in-cheek opinion page, but you muddle the issue to the point that it's clear you don't really understand it.

So let me explain it to you very clearly: Animal rights and environmental conservation are not the same thing, and strong-arming locally owned restaurants has nothing to do with either. You compare foie gras production to soybean cultivation? You suggest activists picket Safeway to encourage environmentally friendly farming? Things like fur and foie are animal rights issues, which means that there's a conflict between the interests of the animals (in this case, not to be killed or forced to live in pain) and the interests of the humans (to wear soft things and eat expensive crap). This is related to environmental conservation (animals have an interest in their habitats not being destroyed, humans have an interest in destroying things), but it's not the same thing. It's like comparing an eviction notice to a concentration camp.

And your locally owned angle is ridiculous. The Heathman is no mom-'n'-pop joint, and even if it was, it wouldn't matter one little bit. Why not? You obviously haven't been paying attention.

Your callous opinions are on the way out, though. Poke fun and enjoy your fattened livers if you must, but know that in two generations people will look back at your ethically antiquated brand of bullshit with disbelief.

Alexis Kurland
Northeast Couch Street

THE JESUS AGENDA

Thank you for your revealing exposé of the evangelicals in our midst ["The J Crew," WW, Dec. 1, 2004]. As a typical Portlander, I am a part of the 88 percent majority that doesn't attend church, and also doesn't believe that those who don't think exactly like me are evil, wrong, or going to hell.

Mr. Lasit claims that "unnamed forces want to ban the Good Book because it condemn[s] homosexuality." I would like to pose the question: WHO?! No one is trying to destroy or otherwise make unavailable the Bible, a powerful cultural artifact.

Regarding the book The Gay Agenda: THERE IS NO GAY AGENDA, unless you consider the liberties that are supposedly granted to us by your own God and our Founding Fathers that we be allowed to pursue our own happiness an "agenda."

Homosexuals are generally regular people--no more or less promiscuous than straights--who want to lead generally normal lives. They certainly are not a threat to you or your children.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the most shining moments in American history are when the people are allowed to live at peace and liberty. The "queer debate" we are having now is the same as the debates we have had regarding slavery, women's suffrage, etc. Do these people want to turn the clock back to when women didn't have any rights? I doubt that is their real intent. I find it really hurtful that it is the African American congregations that are the new Pots calling Kettles black.

Cedric Justice
Southwest 33rd Place