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. WHEE! THE SHEEPLE An issue fit for burning--err, I mean recycling. That's all your recent issue is worth ["Don't Vote Without Reading This First," WW, Oct. 25, 2000]. After all, who could have possibly thought that a bunch of left-wing, pinko, psychotic dope-smokers from hell were actually capable of analyzing the measures and candidates in an objective manner? You should have saved some of our precious trees by commanding your low-brained readership to call Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and tell him not to send them the voter's pamphlets. They won't read them anyway. I mean, there's so much information that they'd have to put down the bong for a couple days to make it through. But why would they do that? They can just act like the mindless puppets they are and open up your manifesto: "Choose only Democrats, save when the Republican candidate is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing, i.e., a spineless fraud"; "Vote against any measure that would result in a tax break and a more fiscally responsible government because we need more politically correct agencies and handouts for the destitute." Blather, blather, blather... "And by all means, vote against that intolerant measure that would prevent second and third graders from learning the true joys of a homosexual or bisexual existence." See how easy that is, you pathetic "sheeple"? Now just look again at the button on the front cover of said issue and follow its instructions--"Don't Vote." Cary Cadonau Southwest 6th Avenue DR. FREUD, MEET MR. LEYKIS Your article on Tom Leykis served to intrigue, inform and annoy ["Inside the New Male Mind," WW, Oct. 11, 2000]. Given WW's editorial aims, you succeeded. Demographically, I'm part of that "Lost Boys" cohort--40, never married, had my share of troubles with commitment. Yet I would as soon align myself with that mindset as drink Drano with an ammonia chaser. Leykis' point is true that all men want sex, but true like "all men want donuts" is true. Evolutionary imperatives form us, and sugar smells like survival to our reptile brain. Likewise, sowing our seed widely. It is easy to reveal one facet of our nature close to our evolutionary roots and proclaim, "This is the truth," ignoring the rest of the story. We want sex, yes. But people have an innate and insatiable need for nurture. Unfortunately, we receive only a finite amount before we become "adults." Our problem as men is that sex feels like a survival need, as does nurturing. We want both, we're poorly trained to find either, and we get mad as hell that (OK, how Freudian can I go with this one?) Mom's not giving us the teat. Just as Safeway knows it's easier to sell Oreos than tofu, public personalities find sex an easier sell than relationships that feed the whole person. That type of relationship requires being vulnerable. No wonder it feels like war--you could get shot down. But, absent that risk, we're left with expensive dates and Chinese-food intimacy--an hour later, we're still hungry. Oddly enough, even men like myself have a whole person somewhere in their pockets, down under that wallet that women (supposedly) and advertisers (certainly) are looking for, and somewhere alongside those cojones that Leykis is trying to sell us back. Timo Forsberg Northeast 76th Avenue DON'T GORE OUR OWN OX I worked with Ralph Nader in the early 1970s. I was the first executive director of OSPIRG when it was founded as a student organization. I spent a fair amount of time with Ralph and respected him enormously. His presidential bid has gone off the tracks and now promises only to provide him with a good fund-raising device (if he makes his 5 percent) while possibly giving us George Bush for a president. In Oregon, a vote that is not for Al Gore will result in the certain repeal of the Soda Mountain National Monument, the certain construction of the Pelican Butte Ski Area, a rollback of the efforts to improve the management of Central Oregon BLM and other rangeland, and--working our way north in Oregon--abandonment of any real hope of saving the wild salmon. If you care about those things and have worked to save them as I have and are thinking of voting for Ralph, remember that the evils I list here are the announced policy of the Bush-Cheney ticket. Steve McCarthy Northwest 32nd Street GORE VITAL Is Ralph Nader right that the two major parties are really the "republicrats," and that it doesn't matter whether Gore or Bush wins? Consider a list of bills vetoed by Bill Clinton since Republicans took control of Congress in 1994: Two bills banning late-term abortions, two gratuitously punitive welfare bills, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, a reduction in product liability, cuts in environmental protection, and a large estate-tax cut for the very wealthy. This list doesn't include a host of other truly heinous bills Republicans would have passed had they not known that Clinton would simply veto them. One should also note that while not a staunch environmentalist, Clinton has declared many irreplaceable natural areas national monuments, protected millions of roadless acres on national forest land, signed the Kyoto treaty on global warming and supported very tough new regulations under the Clean Air Act. None of these things would have happened had a Republican been sitting in the White House these last six years. I understand the urge on the left to vote for Nader. It is a defendable choice. But Naderites should not delude themselves into thinking that it really makes no difference who is president. If Bush wins, four years from now Nader supporters will find themselves being wildly enthusiastic about a candidate who holds the views that Al Gore holds now. Nathan Teske Northeast Alameda Street GREEN ENOUGH FOR US Jeffrey St. Clair's diatribe against Al Gore was filled with fallacies [Q&A, WW, Oct. 18, 2000]. He blames Gore because logging under Clinton increased compared to logging under Bush. This before-after comparison is ridiculous. Logging under Bush was stopped (regionally) because a judge concluded Bush's plan violated the Endangered Species Act. It assumes a reelected Bush wouldn't have developed a legal plan with even more logging. Or, worse, Bush and Congress could've gutted the Endangered Species Act. Not even 20 senators would've defended the ESA if courts had continued to bar logging perpetually. I could list 10 Gore disappointments, but these were mainly Clinton decisions. Expecting Gore to criticize Clinton with huge political fallout is just too much to ask. More importantly, I could list 100 Gore successes. Any fair reading of Gore's record concludes he is the strongest pro-environment presidential candidate of any major party ever. Dramatic environmental progress is more likely with President Gore (as a moderate on other issues) than under any other scenario. It's far more likely than suggesting that Bush's election would prompt a revolt and we'd elect a progressive candidate in 2004. St. Clair's suggestion that environmentalists should prefer Bush to "energize" the movement is backwards. The movement isn't an end; it's a means. His suggestion is also naïve. If environmentalists are seen as spoilers who elected Bush, it will make us look like extremists who will stab our friends in the back if they're not perfect. Nothing could be worse for our ability to build the coalitions necessary to make meaningful progress. Jonathan Poisner Oregon League of Conservation Voters Southwest Stark Street Editor's Note: Although Poisner is the executive director of the OLCV, the organization itself does not make endorsements in presidential elections. THE PIG OF BAGDAD As a Bagdad employee who worked the Tom Leykis event, and as a woman, I felt compelled to reply after reading your cover story ["Inside the New Male Mind," WW, Oct. 11, 2000]. As a female worker at that event, I felt afraid, for myself and for other women there. It would have been interesting if your correspondent had actually talked to some of the women (few in number) who showed up for his event, or if your correspondent had discussed the events during and after the show, which thankfully I was not there for but heard horror stories about from my co-workers. The scene was a chaotic mass of mostly males, leering at my co-workers, and doing much worse than that to some of the women who chose to go to the show. I wonder if that's what they had in mind when they went. While I don't hold Tom Leykis personally responsible for a large, drunken group of his ardent followers, the attitude he appears to adopt furthers frightening ideas about gender and society. While I respect anyone's right to free speech, the comments made by Leykis in your article portray a vastly generalized and gender-biased philosophy that I fear helps lead to violence, ignorance and abuse. Instead of seeing each person as an individual, Leykis neatly divides humanity into two stereotypical gender-based groups. To reduce every woman to a lawsuit-happy money grabber and every male to a lecherous cynic is degrading to both sexes and inherently untrue. Instead of being a role model of respect and decency, Leykis seems to want to fuel the "battle of the sexes" fire, which cannot lead to greater understanding of or respectful awareness of either "side." Anyone espousing these generalities in a racial context would be severely reprimanded. Since it is gender bias instead of race or sexual-preference bias, he merits the cover of your publication. Would that some day the most basic bias of our species were gone, and we could see each other as humans, members of the same species with many things in common. If people like Tom Leykis remain popular, I don't see that happening soon, if ever. Hope Cook Southeast Harrison Street THE REAL CASUALTIES Tom Leykis states that women need a crack in the ass ["Inside the New Male Mind," WW, Oct. 11, 2000]. Well, Mr. Leykis, it seems your wish has already come true: --Four million women are battered by intimate partners every day; --Six to 10 women are killed by their boyfriends or husbands every day; --42 percent of all violent crimes in Multnomah County are instances of men committing violent acts against women; --132,800 women are abused (physically, sexually and emotionally) by men in Oregon each year. Who really needs a crack in the ass, Mr. Leykis? Tom Leykis states that "women control how much sex men get." Hmm, so why is it that one out of four women in the United States is raped in her lifetime? Tom Leykis states that "dating is war." Oh my, yes it is, Mr. Leykis, but judging from the statistics, there is no doubt of who is being attacked (and killed, in some instances) by whom. (Note: The above statistics are accurate; contact your local domestic-violence resource center or women's crisis hotline for more info.) Despite the frequency and severity of physical and sexual violence that women endure from men, none of us are dumb enough to host a gender-bashing radio show. Some final words to Mr. Leykis: Perhaps the bitterness you display towards women and relationships stems from the (no doubt) many rejections you have probably experienced from women who are not turned on by your smarmy, smug, homely appearance (as evidenced by your picture in the WW article) and attitude (as evidenced by the text of the article). If reincarnation exists, I hope you come back in your next life as a physically and sexually abused single mother. Then you'll really know what it's like to get a "crack in the ass." J. M. Stager Northeast Dekum Street