LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Bush should support gun ban

I agree with the newspaper's comment about the assault weapons ban (Register-Guard, July 7). It should be continued. We don't need more guns on the street with this type of firepower. It would indeed take too many lives.

I pray President Bush does the right thing. Lives are on the line. I hope he supports continuing the ban on assault weapons. I am a Republican and think he is doing a great job! I hope he sees the importance of this ban.

ELIZABETH JEAN SHEETS

Eugene

System isn't true capitalism

The political system of the United States has the trappings of a democratic republic but functions as a plutocratic oligarchy - i.e., the wealthy control the government for their own selfish ends. The wealthy and their retainers tout the economic system of the United States as capitalism, but the reality is that it functions as corporate socialism.

The role of the U.S. government is to aid and abet corporate America in its profitability and viability to the detriment of the American people. To tout the economic system as capitalism gives capitalism a bad rap.

It would be difficult to find a true capitalist operating within the U.S. economic system. A true capitalist is a rugged individual, self-reliant and independent. He relishes competition. He provides for the public good. He would not take a handout from the federal government because of the strings attached.

A corporation has only one reason for existing, and that is to provide for the public good. If a corporation or business entity cannot carry out that function, its charter should be revoked. Corporations exist at the pleasure of the American people; they have no inherent power, only that which is derived from the American people.

The purpose of government at all levels is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The U.S. government, being corrupt, provides the greatest good for the fewest number of people - the wealthy.

PATRICK ATKINSON

Eugene

Eugene doesn't support write-in

A story in the July 8 Register-Guard reported interest in testing the waters for a write-in Eugene mayoral candidate for next November. Their first candidate lost fair and square, but some business interests feel they deserve another try, unwilling to accept that a healthy majority of Eugeneans don't support a political machine that is glued to an earlier period of economic conditions and assumptions that are increasingly out of date.

Unmistakable global trends of resource availability and international affairs clearly identify a world that will be increasingly subject to environmental, economic and political instability. Consider global warming, declining food productivity, sharpening tensions over critical resources like water and energy, poverty, population pressures, degraded natural systems we depend on, international jihadists and more.

As a nation and city, our lifestyles and urban form are predicated on perpetual access to limited resources and political stabilities that are not going to hold up as we would like. A sober analysis prescribes that we make every effort to transition our way of life toward a more compact urban form and that we become much more conservation conscious at all levels.

We need new understanding, strategies and leadership the old guard does not seem to understand. Those uneasy with change would do well to realize that many of their skills will be essential to making the adaptations Eugene and our nation will need in the future.

JAN SPENCER

Eugene

Moore fills leadership vacuum

Why do people like Michael Moore succeed?

Because nature abhors a vacuum.

There is a vacuum in the neoconservative leadership today. There is a complete absence of fairness in Republicans in Washington, D.C. To fill that abyss, people like Michael Moore step forward.

The movie "Fahrenheit 9/11' may in fact be nothing more than a bunch of cleverly spin-doctored lies. It would be both justice and irony in beating Fox News at its own game.

The void in conservative moral leadership? Treating George W. Bush the way they didn't treat Bill Clinton. They all wanted an impeachment. They got it. Now it's time for some application of the Golden Rule.

Bush's misconduct is causing us to not only lose the war on terror, but also the war on drugs. Afghanistan has a bumper crop of opium. Guess who's going to pay for that in the long run?

I support the troops. I don't support a president whose moral deficit exceeds the size of the national debt.

RICHARD B. MARTIN

Veneta

Who would want to be a liberal?

Who would ever want to be labeled "liberal?" Those people are too bleeding-heart and touchy-feely, you know, empathizing and giving support to those wretches of the world who have AIDS and other problems the world tries to keep hidden.

They tend to be more concerned for others than themselves. These people seem OK about paying their share of taxes and with the government being more involved in providing for the health and well being of everyone - even those who don't deserve it! Crazy talk.

These weirdos tend to not care about conformity; they will wear sandals if it suits them. Don't even get me started on their ranting about peace and love nonsense. Liberals remind me of that rabble-rouser from way back 2,000 years ago, you know, that Jesus character. Who would want to be like that?

DON BOUCHER

Florence

Drug cards save seniors money

It is so sad when people will lie to the poor and the innocent in order gain power, and that is exactly what Democrats have done regarding the Medicare drug card.

I know, because I checked into the drug card for my father- and mother-in-law - ages 88 and 85 - and discovered how easy it really was to save between 20 percent and 30 percent on their drugs. I simply went on the Internet to www.medicare.gov and followed the simple instructions to determine which drug cards would provide the best savings in their particular cases. The savings more than pay for the cost of the card, which is $30 per year each.

Then I called [phone] and spoke with a very patient and kind gentleman who helped me and also forwarded a booklet in large type which provided the same information, but it took three weeks for it to arrive.

Unfortunately, the really needy have listened to the lies of the Democrats and all of the naysayers and haven't even bothered to apply for what is a guaranteed savings of $600 on their initial costs for their drugs and then the 20 percent to 30 percent savings enjoyed by those who are more well off, all without even having to pay the fee for the card, because it is waived for the really poor.

JOAN C. CHIPMAN

Eugene

Marriage isn't just about kids

So the reason to ban gay marriage is really about "natural nurturing and rearing of children" (Register-Guard, July 12) and the "state's interest in the well-being of the next generation that the marriage naturally produces" (Register-Guard, July 12).

Oh, really? Then why do states allow older post-menopausal women to marry? What about infertile couples? How long should a marriage be valid if no children are born unto it? Do couples with more children have a better marriage? Should the marriage be invalidated if it creates a gay child? Why do states grant divorce?

The only truth about the opposition to gay marriage is that people are fearful and ignorant about gays. No, it's not all about sex. No, there is no recruitment movement. No, it's not contagious. No, it's not a choice, as in pancakes or omelette. Yes, it's about sharing your life, making a commitment and keeping private matters private.

And one more thought: Does Sen. Gordon Smith realize that gay youths commit suicide because of biases like his own?

HALLIE EDWARDS

Marcola

Parker wrong about marriage

It was no surprise to see columnist Kathleen Parker (Register-Guard, July 12) say that people whose opinion differs from hers are practicing "sophistry." As a professional practitioner of sophistry, she should certainly recognize it when she sees it.

If, as Parker says, the goal and purpose for the state to validate heterosexual marriage is the production of children who will have both a father and a mother, then what business do women have being married after menopause? When my mother died at age 54, my father remarried to a widow even older than he is. After over 20 years of marriage, they have yet to produce children.

As for the legal rights of their existing adult children by former marriages, their legal union has only confused those issues among us. I have two married sisters-in-law who allowed professional lives and personal pleasure to take priority in their lives and neither produced offspring. Using Parker's sophistry, the state has no business nor interest in validating any of those marriages, none of which intended to produce children.

Beyond that, the state's validation of heterosexual marriage has in no way assured that our society's children are being raised by both a father and a mother. If we remove the veneer of Parker's sophistry, her arguments against same-sex marriage are vapid.

The state does bestow certain rights on some and not on others, and the presence or absence of children has absolutely nothing to do with it.

DANIEL HUNTER

Springfield