LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.

Byline: The Register-Guard

College hostile to conservatives

In The Register-Guard's April 7 editorial on the liberal bias in higher education, the writer parrots the liberal columnist Ellen Goodman, who recently stated that there is no doubt about a significant liberal bias of professors in our colleges, but "so what?"

According to the editorial, only values matter, not political leanings. The editor attempts to explain why colleges present such an attraction to liberals.

The editor seems to buy into the explanation that liberals offer and dismisses the conservative explanation. Liberals say teaching is such a low-paying job, it attracts anti-materialistic people with strong ideals. This implies, of course, that conservatives are materialistic and do not have any ideals. What study shows this? Probably the same one that prompts the writer to say that incidents of bias in the classrooms are very small and insignificant.

I wish the editorial writer would have talked to the conservative students at the University of Oregon that I talked to during the last election campaign about some very disturbing incidents of intimidation and humiliation suffered by those who dare voice conservative viewpoints at the university.

The editorial ends by saying we should always promote the important values in institutions of learning - open inquiry, intellectual honesty and free debate.

That is all the conservatives are suggesting. Saying the values already exist in the academic world does not make it true. Evidence suggests the opposite.

RITA NITSCHE

Eugene

Extremists damage Christianity

Bob Welch's plea for religious tolerance (Register-Guard, March 27) came from deep within him and was a message worth reading. Yet as one who shares with him a Christian background, I find it easy to understand why reader responses (Register-Guard, March 29) would be critical.

When he suggests America is getting dangerously narrow in its view of Christians, Welch misses the point. Christianity is not under attack except by extremists within it. Concern is, and should be, over a dangerous minority element that chooses to be the attacker. It has brought intimidation to society by encouraging the ultimate conflict of Armageddon.

It feeds Israeli paranoia, then encourages Israel's ambitions for dominance in the Middle East. Israel's leaders may accept their assistance. But its citizens recognize hypocrisy in a faith-based belief in the eventual day of fundamentalist "rapture."

The coming of such a day, inconsistent with beliefs of most Christians, would leave Israelis and all others damned as heaven beckons a group of Christian mutants who have a misguided view of Christ's teachings. It is their privilege to believe what they wish.

Things change when the man in the presidency and a Texas congressman violate the spirit and the letter of the law by catering to the religious extreme right. What we need is a firm stand by moderate Christians against Christian extremism.

GEORGE BERES

Eugene

Meth and pot are not the same

Former federal agents Jim Feldkamp and Michael Spasaro's analogy that treating methamphetamine and marijuana differently is like banning Camels and not Winstons is ridiculous (guest viewpoint, April 4). They imply that meth and pot are basically the same, therefore pose the same problem. Any child knows this is false.

Their reference to the drop in tobacco use is right on the mark, however. We did not accomplish this by outlawing that substance, but by treating it as a health problem. Using that as a model for dealing with other drugs, we must remove law-enforcement from the equation.

They suggest that our representatives' support for medical pot confuses the message that drugs are bad for you. To make the simple-minded assertion that drugs are bad for you, we need to shut down the pharmaceutical industry. If heroin is bad for you, better not prescribe other opiates for pain management.

They acknowledge that the notion of pot as a gateway drug is spurious, then affirm it. As a teacher who works with many at the county jail afflicted by meth, I can confirm that all of them were fed milk as children.

Is it amazing that representatives of law-enforcement agencies would suggest ramping up prohibition? No. But that attitude does not serve the public good. As intelligent citizens, we can distinguish among substances and their uses. Morphine for palliative care? Good. Heroin for kicks? Bad. Marijuana for palliative care? Good. Marijuana for kicks? Well, you fill in the blank.

JOSEPH RENAUD

Eugene

Military conspiracies exposed

I was amused by the dichotomy of opinions between two Mailbag writers whose letters were cleverly arranged side-by-side on April 7.

Peter Powers exposed the thinly veiled conservative conspiracy that has resulted in our military being dominated by people with one political view of the world. He would like to see more liberals wearing the uniform.

Next to Powers' letter was one from Rick Venturi who exposed another smoldering conspiracy: resumption of the military draft, which he strongly opposes. Venturi believes that only those who agree with President Bush should volunteer for military service.

I find something to cheer about in both these letters. My military service in the early 1960s was both voluntary and richly rewarding. My political leaning at the time was clearly liberal, but it was not a factor in my decision to serve. The quality and effectiveness of our military personnel has never been higher than it is today.

Like Venturi, I believe that it should remain an all-volunteer force. If he did some objective research on the subject, Venturi would quickly learn that those rascally conspirators who control the military feel that way too, as does the vast majority populating the executive and legislative branches of our government.

Regarding Powers' call for more liberals in uniform, he gets my vote for best idea of the week. He also gets high marks for conspiracy debunking and skillfully exposing naked emperors.

STEPHEN M. ROBERTS

Eugene

Mercury rule is a cruel lottery

Jeff Holmstead (letters, April 7) places himself in contention for the George Orwell "Doublespeak of the Year" award.

Holmstead signs himself "assistant administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C." I'll bet there's quite a story about how it came to be named the Office of Air and Radiation.

Holmstead attempts to downplay the fact, as reported previously in an editorial in The Register-Guard, that the Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management report on the health effects of airborne mercury was not included in the EPA's rule-making process. He says: "Another analysis of the very same literature formed the basis for the Clean Air Mercury rule."

I think he left out the phrase "one more to our liking." He claims the new rule "will reduce nationwide emissions from power plants by 70 percent." Balderdash! The language of the rule states that emissions will be reduced by about 50 percent by 2015. Hardly reassuring if you live downwind of one of these behemoths.

But he saves his best for last. "The rule's cap-and-trade system will create the incentive for big early reductions in pollution." Horsefeathers! What he's describing is a kind of cruel lottery: If you live downwind from a plant which has bought mercury credits, you lose. Sorry about that. Holmstead's irresponsible attempt at public relations falls far short of what we should expect from someone in his position.

PAUL PRENSKY

Springfield

Bennett-Franken link unfair

I must say I was a little taken aback by Kathleen Parker's column contrasting Bill Bennett with Al Franken and Air America (Register-Guard, April 7).

I am no fan of Al Franken. I find him much like a Rush Limbaugh of the left. But to imply that Bill Bennett - who is, in my opinion, a hypocrite, as Parker's column notes but minimizes - is at the front of a revolution is absurd. This revolution occurred years ago - with shows like the Forum from KQED, Talk of the Nation, the Diane Rheem Show and other shows like them.

It also seemed somewhat disingenuous to contrast Bennett only with shows from the left, when Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and others on the right are every bit as childish as Al Franken.

Bennett definitely expresses views from right of center and some of the hosts of the shows that I mentioned appear to come from left of center, but all attempt to do so in a calm, adult manner.

Parker should give credit where credit is due. Quite honestly, her slant in this column serves to further create a left-right divide rather than contribute to a civil discourse that might somehow bring our nation back together.

BILL MUSSER

Florence

Angry letters breed ignorance

Is it just me, or is the city of Eugene filled with whining people infatuated with stereotyping and labeling?

Maybe The Register-Guard should have a cooling-off period before more readers can submit their anger-laden letters.

According to many of our citizens, all Christians are right-wing, hateful bigots and all liberals are anarchists who hate the United States of America. Why can't we practice what we believe in? Don't Christians believe in love and compassion? Don't liberals believe in love and diversity?

Intelligent conversation is welcomed, but stop painting people with a broad brush. It only breeds ignorance.

TODD THOMAS

Eugene