LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[March 8th, 2006] FUELS RUSH IN

It's great to see people actually preparing for the global decline of oil, and it's reassuring to see WW recognize it as a real threat in our lifetime ["My Name Is Randy, and I'm Addicted to Oil," Feb. 22, 2006]. But is the answer to just overlay our existing model for sustainable living onto survivalist paranoia?

Burning wood, really? I hope Randy has an ax, a shotgun and an ox. He'll need all three to drag the last elm out of Forest Park in our post-oil Economaclypse. Sorry for heckling, but there are ideas in the progressive vision of our energy future that need to be re-examined.

Like this cheerleading over agri-fuels. Yes it's true that ethanol and biodiesel can be inserted into our existing transportation infrastructure, and that doing so will reduce both CO2 emissions and our dependency on foreign oil. However, we are literally talking about binding the global energy market and the global food market into the same supply-and-demand equation. If agri-fuels become popular, we risk amplifying food insecurity both domestically and abroad.

Then there's the "nuclear option." Critics of nuclear energy have good reason to be skeptical when conservatives and nuclear-industry lobbyists repeat the same "trust us, we know what we're doing" rhetoric year after year. But science marches on, and there are real models for next-generation nuclear power that progressives should examine dispassionately. Maybe it's far-fetched to believe we can reprocess and consume existing stockpiles of nuclear waste, or eliminate enriched uranium from the nuclear fuel cycle. But pissing on every mention of the N word will never make it come true.

Michael Eaton
Gladstone

BODE'S NOT A LOSER! REALLY!

Byron Beck keeps showing his intelligence, as in his piece on the Olympic Games in Turin [Queer Window, WW, Feb. 22, 2006].

He begins with the (way too much informational) tiddlywink that he once boinked a Canadian ice dancer in town for an "all-star skate show." Zounds! He's a star fucker!

After that, and forgive me for this, it all goes downhill—from Joey Cheek's butt to Zhang Dan's painful fall to Michelle Kwan's unfortunate withdrawal to the misfortunes of Johnny Weir, who, in Beck's estimation, makes Richard Simmons look butch. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I give up.

Anyway, so much for Queer Window blather. Where Beck steps over the line is in calling Bode Miller a dick. Does he really think that Nike, the most successful sports company in the world, would back a loser? Bode is the only truly interesting American athlete participating in the games this year and the best reason to tune in. A gossip columnist shouldn't cover sports events.

One ought to do what one does best. In Mr. Beck's case, that would probably be barista-bashing.

Jess Gault
Southeast Ladd Avenue

BROKEBACK BATHROOM

Your recent article on gay bathroom sex ["Come Here Often?," March 1, 2006] seems innocuous on the surface, but reeks of cynicism underneath.

Gay men have for centuries met for anonymous sex in public and semi-public places because for centuries gay sex was illegal. The tradition of "tearoom sex," as it is sometimes called, came around because sex between same-sex partners was considered so repulsive (or titillating) by puritanical, bigoted legislators and laymen, it was driven out of the bedroom and into the bushes.

Sure, to many gay men, public sex is hot. (When you have nothing but lemons, you tend to make lemonade...so to speak.) It is exciting because of the risks of being "caught" and because of the immediate rush of being "in the open." Reportedly and historically, these encounters are mostly done with respect to non-participants and few people know it's even going on, unless they're looking for it.

It strains credulity to think WW is performing a service to gay men by providing them listings of these sites. It seems hardly the forum, since the whole point of the scene is that it's secretive and for adult consumption only (hence the appropriateness of adult websites).

Why would WW want to publish public gay sex spots? Gay men know where they are. Straight people don't need to know (unless WW is warning or provoking them).

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? To bring up fear and loathing among homophobes? To alert the police of new opportunities to harass gay men? Or is it simply a pubescent lip-smacking on the part of your writers? What are you? The National Enquirer?

Glenn Scofield Williams
North Calhoun Avenue

DISPOSABLE PEN

Imagine my surprise and delight reading a Callahan cartoon that was actually funny, "Chuck being on the road most of the time..." [WW, Feb. 22, 2006].

For years I've wondered why the WW gives this guy as much as a microliter of ink. Why? Not because he's offensive, or his apparent license to skewer anything and everything because he's disabled. No, I wonder because his cartoons are just so damned stupid.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a game reading him just to see how unfunny his cartoons perpetually are (as I used to read Family Circus), but he certainly wouldn't be missed if the local golden boy were to be replaced with someone else's penwork.

Jeff Schuh
Southwest Viewpoint Terrace