LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[May 24th, 2006] DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ABOUT UNICORN HUNTING

I love your newspaper and generally tolerate most articles by your doe-eyed staff writers. However, I take great issue with a blurb in your recent outdoors guide, "Bull's-Eye" [May 17, 2006], describing the means of cougar hunting.

After briefly detailing the history of the decline and rise of our cougar population in Oregon, Erika-Leigh Goodwin writes: "Could you think of a better way to celebrate our natural achievement than getting out there and taking one out?"

I am no animal-rights activist, only a lover of animals and great admirer of the mighty mountain lion. It's just that your writer's statement strikes me as such a brutal tangent from your literary achievement. I mean, what's the score? Did I miss some kind of irony or tongue-in-cheek humor? Her punk tone toward these magical beings is absurd and embarrassing. She sounds more like a television writer for some kind of preteen Survivor rip-off.

I don't have any trust in writers like Erika-Leigh Goodwin and grow weary of their reckless intent. If it came down to it, I would prefer to find myself alone in the forest with a cougar rather than her. At least I'd know who I'm dealing with.

Christian Skipper
Southeast Morrison Street

CALLAHAN: WW'S PARENTAL-WARNING LABEL

Regarding "Banished from the Garden of Readin'" [Mailbox, May 17, 2006]: Ms. [Claudia] Corbin, when you write "I haven't read a copy of Willamette Week since the last time I wrote to complain about the content of Callahan's cartoons," it is clear that only the first eight words of that sentence must be true.

Have you ever read WW any further than page four? If you had ever done so, you would have discovered that Willamette Week is not a children's newspaper. Indeed, you would have discovered that WW is not intended for anyone who is offended by the word "fuck."

Perhaps it is best that Callahan's comic appears so early in the publication, serving as an unwritten disclaimer (though maybe it needs to be written for some people): "If this cartoon offends you, you probably shouldn't read the rest of this paper." Don't read the paper and then complain about it—just don't read it.

There are no full-color pages with Ziggy or Family Circus strips, there's no Jumble, no word find, nothing targeted at young people. Just because "KIDS read this stuff, you know," there is no reason for the paper to eliminate the Callahan strip. Instead, let's leave it up to parents to read this "low-class rag" first, and decide themselves whether to allow their kids to read it.

Thom Graff
Tigard

CHANGE YOUR BET, GUV

Gov. Ted Kulongoski based his decision to support an off-reservation casino in the Columbia Gorge on poor advice and erroneous information ["Betting on the Governor's Race," WW, May 17, 2006]. In addition, he and his staff failed to facilitate a public discussion on the future of the Columbia Gorge and whether the expansion of casinos to off-reservation sites was right for Oregon. Instead, his staff held secret closed-door meetings with one tribe and cooked up an agreement that violated state policy on tribal casinos and broke a campaign promise that he made to the people of Oregon. Considering these missteps, it's no surprise that the Gorge casino has become a highly visible campaign issue.

It's not too late for the governor to right these wrongs. A mark of a true leader is the ability to set stubbornness aside, consider new information, reexamine previous positions, and reach out to the people and ask their advice. There are solutions available that would protect the Columbia Gorge, be fair to all tribes in Oregon and preserve Oregon's policy of one casino per tribe located on reservations. All the governor has to do is acknowledge these solutions and return to his pre-election campaign promise to oppose a casino in the Columbia Gorge.

The Department of Interior's decision last year to deny the Gorge casino compact gave the governor a second chance. That's something that you don't always get in politics. He should use it wisely.

Michael Lang
Southwest 5th Avenue

Editor's Note: Lang is conservation director of Friends of the Columbia Gorge.

JERSEY STANDS WITH ART

There is no doubt that Art Alexakis is getting a royal screwing from his second wife, Stephanie, pertaining to support payments ["Starving Art," WW, May 17, 2006]. First, she is a young, very attractive woman; second, they have no children together; and third, she is quite capable of getting a position in society. That's a nice way of saying, the vacation is over—go to work!

I can understand the concept of temporary alimony that is to be used to assist the former spouse in getting herself back into the workforce with updating her skills, etc. However, this type of support has a beginning and an end. I feel Art has fulfilled this responsibility a long time ago.

Pertaining to first wife, Jennifer, Art's motion to reduce his child-support payments from $3,000 per month should definitely be approved. Anyone who knows Art is aware of how much he loves his daughter Anna. There is no question of that, and Art is not trying to avoid his father responsibilities. He is not and never will be a deadbeat dad. This is not about love but about finances. Child support is determined based on the joint income of both parents. There is no mention if Jennifer works or has means towards income, interest, etc. Art's income has dramatically been reduced, and so should his financial child support obligations.

Robert Fenkel
Edison, N.J.

KANSAS: STATE OF THE ART

Congratulations on being able to write a story trying to slander a great musician and failing. Art [Alexakis], from just this story alone, is a great man who is doing anything he can for his daughter. Yes, he needs his payments reduced to the child's mother, but he is also paying for private schooling and insurance. He is there for his child when so many other fathers in the world don't care, let alone pay for private school.

As for Stephanie, having to pawn a ring to pay for lawyer bills: Good one. Maybe if she had a job, she could pay for it without pawning stuff. She lived off of Art for four years. Four years is time to finish a training course or college to get a better job than waitressing. She could have gotten acting lessons in four years so that she would have an acting career and support herself. She comes across as a greedy, ruthless person, in my opinion. I hope the judge awards what Art is asking for and laughs—yes, laughs—in Stephanie's face.

This is only my opinion, but I am sure many might agree with me on this, that the article was only run in the paper to try and get sympathy for Stephanie, who doesn't deserve it. Best wishes to Art and Anna, that they keep their heads held high when so many people wish them bad.

Sarah Reed
Wellington, Kans.