WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. Way Off Track I've always been kind of embarrassed to be represented by someone my age who doesn't really seem to have a better grasp on the issues facing me and my fellow Portlanders every day than I do. I refer, of course, to Erik Sten. I was ashamed, however, to read his analogy regarding the issue of whether AT&T should be forced to give other ISPs access to its cable network ["The Shot Heard 'Round the World Wide Web," WW, Aug. 11, 1999]. His ill-conceived analogy reads, "It's like saying they've got a car that can go 120 miles per hour, and the city can't set any speed limits on it." This is so wrong-headed I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. The cable network AT&T has purchased isn't analogous to a car, the vehicle of transport on an already established highway. It is part of the highway. Like it or not, TCI built a large chunk of road (extending the same analogy Mr. Sten started); since AT&T now owns the company that built this road, they have every legal right to restrict access to it. If AT&T came into Portland and built the proposed highway from Tualatin to Hillsboro with its own money, would you expect the company to allow anyone to drive on it for free? I love competition, and I have no problem with government stepping in to stop companies when they threaten to abuse their advantages and engage in unfair business practices. In this case, however, I'm afraid the individuals seeking to take AT&T down are not just wrong, they're way off the mark legally. It is depressing enough that politicians are so out of touch with the common man that we rarely feel like our needs are truly being addressed. It's even worse when young hotshot politicians seeking to make a name for themselves tackle a faceless entity like AT&T while not really even having an inkling of what the issue is all about. So Mr. Sten is young; does that automatically make him an expert on the Internet? Preston K. Crawford Lake Oswego Zero Intolerance In response to Callahan's cartoon about hate crimes [WW, Aug. 18, 1999], I have this to say: You just don't get it. At a time when we are seeing a surge in crime against people based on their race, ethnicity or religion (not to mention sexual orientation, gender and even vocation, in the case of physicians and other clinic workers who provide abortion services), I can't believe that anyone would question the need for hate-crime laws. To commit a crime against any person is and should be a punishable offense. To commit a crime against a person based on race, ethnicity or religion adds racism to violence, insult to injury, and should be punished as an additional crime. These laws do not, as Callahan intimates, create a value system in which "some people's lives are more valuable than others." They are a reasonable step our society has taken to say that we will not tolerate hatred. Isn't that a statement worth making? Melissa Chernaik Northeast Portland What's The Dilly, Yo? H.V. Claytor Jr.'s piece "Too Much Blackness" [WW, Aug. 11, 1999] was exactly that: a piece. As one of the creators behind the ROSIE 105 television commercial that Claytor criticized for being racially offensive, I would argue Claytor's article was itself offensive. Claytor claims that ROSIE 105 used a white man to act out "stereotypes of black youth." Have you been to a hip-hop club lately? I see kids of all ages using the phrases and gestures we poked fun at in our ad. In fact, that was the whole premise of the commercial, to poke fun at obnoxious, youthful behavior. You presume too much; if anything, we were offending youth. Ouch. At the same time, Claytor champions Jammin' 95.5 for stereotyping a conservative individual who wasn't comfortable with the new hip-hop format. Nice work. It seems people in the media, like Claytor, do much more to damage race relations in this country by trying to fan a fire where there are no flames. I don't recall white people getting real upset with comedians like Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock and Damon Wayans for sarcastically imitating white characters in their acts. Why? Because they're funny and right on the money. Plus, the negative overtones Claytor conjures up with phrases like "great white Northwest" are stereotypical in themselves. Like it or not, hip-hop is not about "blackness," it's about music. The same goes for rock, jazz, blues, etc. It seems veteran musicians figured this out long ago (witness B.B. King, Eric Clapton, Robert Cray, Vernon Reid, Sting, Miles Davis, Run-DMC, Aerosmith). The roots of the music may have started with a certain group, but it's the music's appeal to all people that makes it special. I'm all for individuality and taking pride in one's culture, but quit being such a dick about this. Pass that along to all your friends in the media. Other than that, keep writing all that dope shit. You da Bomb! Steve Flood Co-Owner, Red Monkey Ads & Ideas Southwest Ash Street Rat Control Maureen O'Hagan once again showed her journalistic skill in writing an informative story about the Portland Police Bureau's latest scandal ["Breaking Ranks," WW, Aug. 18, 1999]. But I'm curious as to why there was no mention in the story of former Chief Charles Moose and the fact that the police bureau leadership chose to go public with the scandal just days after Moose's departure. The timing of the announcement begs the question: Did higher-ups decide to contain the scandal until after Moose left so he could avoid criticism and accountability? I would be interested to know whether Moose knew about the fraudulent overtime and what, if anything, he did about it. And if he didn't know about it, why not? He was, after all, the chief of police, and memos were written about the problem. It appears Moose successfully skipped town without answering one question about his role in this fiasco. The other interesting aspect of this scandal, as O'Hagan stresses in the story, is that the Portland Police Association leaders initiated the investigation by going to the bureau brass. This is apparently the first time the union had ratted on its members for alleged wrongdoing. I suspect this "unprecedented action" by union leaders has something to do with current contract negotiations with the city, where they are seeking a 20 percent salary increase. Could it be that the union leaders feared the scandal would weaken their position at the negotiating table and decided to take the moral high ground and rat on their fellow officers for the sake of public-relations damage control? Who would want to agree to huge pay increases for officers who collectively lied about working overtime and got paid for it? This seems more plausible a motivation than the union spontaneously growing a conscience and wanting to do the right thing. Todd Olson Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published August 25, 1999