In a rational world, one would not expect smugness and stupidity to go together. But that is not this world. Which brings me to the Feb. 25 column by the Nose.

Your columnist watched Ralph Nader on Meet the Press for "a few moments," then wrote a lengthy column denouncing Nader's "message."

The first criticism was that Nader chose not to run as a Green, despite previously expressing hope for the Green party. If the writer had managed to stretch his attention span to the full 30 minutes of the show, he would have learned that the Greens decided to not to take up the issue of whether to nominate a presidential candidate until June, far too late for ballot access.

The second criticism was that Nader was supposedly insisting that there was no difference between the other candidates. In fact, the point that Nader stressed during that show (and all of his other appearances) was the necessity of seeing Bush defeated. Even Mark Shields, the unofficial voice of the Democratic party, noted Nader's capacity to improve Kerry's position "on the very issues that Ralph Nader talks about."

For openers, is it too much for progressives to demand, as a condition of support, that Kerry commit himself to getting our troops out of Iraq? Nader wants to end this disaster by rejecting any claims to Iraqi oil or military bases, and exchanging U.S. troops for U.N. peacekeepers. Does your columnist--secure behind his cloak of anonymity--even know that Kerry is committed to staying in Iraq until we "win"? With Saddam overthrown, this is a prescription for a costly quagmire.

Progressives may wish to vote for Kerry in the fall, but should they give up all their leverage by surrendering in March?

Gregory Kafoury
Southwest Stark Street

BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

In a democracy, process matters. The ends do not justify the means. Those who operate in secret do it because they know they have something to hide.

How can WW give the commissioners a free pass on such an abuse of the public trust ["Inside Portland's Velvet Revolution," March 10, 2004]? How can they not be your Rogue of the Week? How can the public trust not be the Loser of the Week?

Daniel R. Barnhart
Southeast 57th Avenue

DAVID WALKER VS. THE MASSES

Here are some of the comments made by film critic David Walker in a single edition of Willamette Week, issued Feb. 25: The film The Passion of the Christ is "anti-semitic" and was made for "the communion-wafer crowd that chooses to forget it was the Romans who drove the nails into the cross."

The gang film City of God creates an "allure of a violent life outside the everyday routine of work and family most of its viewers know."

If you can't predict the ending of the film Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, "then you're stupid, or you're 12."

Walker also predicted that the liberal political message of the film The Fourth World War would bypass "the sensitive, passive, middle-dwelling thinkers" and the "ambivalent masses."

Let me see if I have this right: Many Catholics are wafer-munching Jew-haters, most people are so bored with the "routine" of having a family that they secretly crave to be a violent gang member instead, 12-year-olds are stupid and the masses are only capable of middle-dwelling thought.

After reading all of that, I have only one question. Is David Walker more interested in reviewing films or in making condescending comments about everybody? Perhaps instead of writing pseudo-reviews of films, Mr. Walker could benefit from some therapy instead. If not, I would be more than happy to take Mr. Walker to church with me. You know, the masses aren't so bad once you get to know them.

Mark Workhoven
Northwest 29th Avenue

David Walker responds: Apart from the Passion of the Christ review, all the reviews cited here were by other writers. I'll pass along the invitation.

DOG LOVERS MAKE BETTER CITIZENS

Though not a fan of Jim Francesconi for many reasons, I must comment on the comparison of concern for gang violence to the passion of dog owners [Are We Ready for This?," WW, Feb. 11, 2004]. What about community?

An interconnected and visible community is an effective crime deterrent. Few activities naturally and spontaneously build diverse connections like people gathering with dogs. People stop and interact with complete strangers, and friendships even develop. All without regard to income, social status, and even when one may be sans dog. Is this lack of community, or lack of concern for gangs or kids? I think not.

People walking their dogs through neighborhoods or parks, while socializing themselves, make a safer environment and a stronger, more interconnected community than the vacuum present when people never leave their house but only peer out the windows and complain. Physical presence and visibility matters.

Those who are single-minded in their hatred for dogs do little to build community, and are likely less concerned about other social issues than any dog owners I know. Do dog-haters even recognize that people are involved?

Those caring enough to walk their dogs, while socializing themselves, are often very aware, concerned, and involved with social issues.

Framing this as an issue of loving pets more than kids is way off the mark. The comparison should be made with people who can't see through their anger to recognize the bigger issues in this city.

Concern for pets, and concern for people and community are not mutually exclusive, but are indeed complementary.

Jeff Schuh
Southwest View Point Terrace

HUNNICUTT SHOCKED, SHOCKED

In the Rogue of the Week column [Feb. 25, 2004], you named Arno Political Consulting as the rogue because its signature gatherer misrepresented Initiative 36 as an initiative affecting eminent domain. You quoted David Hunnicutt, director of Oregonians in Action, the group paying Arno to collect signatures, as saying: "It absolutely concerns me if the signature gatherers are misrepresenting the measure. I don't see a connection between this measure and eminent domain. If [misrepresentation] is happening, we will stop it."

In fact, it appears that OIA itself, not only its paid political consultants, may be misrepresenting I-36. On Feb. 23, I talked to a signature gatherer on 6th Avenue across from Pioneer Square in downtown Portland. The woman said that she was collecting signatures for Initiative 36 and that it was about the eminent-domain law. She said that she worked for a company called Oregonians in Action.

Mr. Hunnicutt's response to WW reminds me of the line in the movie Casablanca, when Police Captain Louis Renault says, "I am shocked, shocked, to find out that gambling has been going on on the premises." The roulette operator hands Renault cash, saying, "Your winnings, sir."

Perhaps OIA and its paid consultants should describe what Initiative 36 will really do. It will eradicate Oregon's land-use planning system and destroy our neighborhoods.

Melissa Ryan
Southeast Portland