LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[October 25th, 2006] FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS

As a black person who grew up in the South, I felt obligated to respond to Mr. Jess Nichols' letter [Mailbox, WW, Oct. 18, 2006].

Yes, he's right that [the majority] of Southerners did not own slaves—only the majority of plantation/land owners. There was no real middle class back then, so most Southerners were too poor to afford their very own slaves anyway. (I learned that in public school, by the way.)

Mr. Nichols is also right that the Confederate flag is not a symbol of racism...exclusively. It is a piece of American history, just like he said—which happens to have had a whole lot of racism.

Also, my home state of Georgia incorporated the "stars and bars" into its state flag in 1956 in a blatantly racist response to the brewing civil-rights era. That flag was (finally) changed in 2001, and changed again in 2003 to its current (and hopefully permanent) design.

Look, I personally could care less about what flags or symbols an individual wants to display. I have a very Libertarian attitude and feel that people should be able to wear what they want. Keep in mind, though, when you choose to wear certain symbols, to at least do your research.

Damos Abadon
Southeast 157th Avenue

GOOD ENOUGH FOR PORTLAND THEATER

Wow! I believe that James Walling crossed over the line from critic to savage [see review of An American Daughter, Stage, Oct. 18, 2006]. I could only gather that Mr. Walling has previous issues with Ms. [Jane] Unger, because I saw An American Daughter and it wasn't as awful as he claimed. I wouldn't put it in the category of brilliant, but it was well-acted and at times funny. I would agree that the set design—and to me, the costumes—were pretty laughable, but to use the word "blame" in a review is just mean-spirited and doesn't help to promote Portland's local theater, an apparent necessary evil of Mr. Walling's income.

The casting may not have been ideal, but there are so many factors involved in producing a play that perhaps Ms. Unger's first choices weren't available. And, hypothetically, it's because there might not be the budget she would like to have access to due to vicious reviews like this one. How about reviewing local theater so it has a chance to grow? I would say that despite the flaws of this production of An American Daughter, it is worth going if for no other reason than even a bad night at the theater is often better than a good night at home alone in front of your television, which is where Mr. Walling might consider staying.

Heather Swain
Via wweek.com

SPACE CASE

Your opposition to Bond Measure 26-80 ["Body Politic," Oct. 18, 2006] is pretty daffy. You assert that denying preservation money for open space will "send a message" to Metro to stop involving themselves in health care and affordable housing. That's like "sending a message" by not buying fire coverage because your insurer uses some of that money for, say, political lobbying.

Your argument is not even internally consistent: You acknowledge that 1 million new people will soon "pour into the region," yet you claim that preserving open space is not pressing. Do you think they can all fit into the Pearl District?

It comes down to this: Would you prefer to spend a little now, or a whole lot more in the future when land prices skyrocket?

Peter Bray
Northeast Irving Street

YES ON 26-80

I thought I saw a typo when you failed to endorse Metro's open-spaces measure. As I read on, your rationale for opposing it shocked me even more.

You decry purchasing land "so far outside the UGB that's it's...unnecessary." Hogwash. When John Olmsted presented his plan for Portland Parks a century ago, people scoffed at the notion of purchasing land "so far outside" the city—places like Mount Tabor.ÊIf we had listened to the naysayers then, we would have an East Hills Neighborhood instead of a park and public water reservoirs. And please save the "mission creep" rhetoric for when it's relevant: Like it or not, this measure represents Metro doing exactly what its charter directs it to do. In the Measure 37 era, that is even more critical. The UGB is only going outward, and land prices are only going up. I urge your readers to ignore your petulant opposition and vote in favor of Measure 26-80.

Grant Morehead
Northeast 10th Avenue

YES ON 46 & 47

Unlike The Oregonian, Willamette Week has chosen to take the high road and judge ballot measures on their actual merits rather than how it might affect its advertisers. It is a sorry state when The Oregonian prints articles about the Legislature changing laws on prescription drugs for the drug companies that dutifully contributed to legislators' campaigns and at the same time comes out against two measures that would end this corrupting influence of corporate money.

Willamette Week is to be commended for your unbiased assessment of the upcoming election. I don't agree with all your choices, but I do know they weren't, unlike The Oregonian's, influenced by advertising dollars.

Ballot Measures 46 and 47, which will limit campaign contributions for candidates, will end the race for money that is now going on. Our elected officials are supposed to serve the people and not be beholden to the special interests that now fund their campaigns. A yes vote for Measures 46 and 47 will send a clear message who's the boss—the voters of Oregon.

Andy Reid
Southeast 39th Avenue