WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. DIAMOND DOGS I was pleased to see a skeptical piece on diamond fixation ("The Diamond Life," WW, Jan. 5, 2000), but it didn't go nearly far enough. PBS's Frontline did a piece in February 1994 called "The Diamond Empire" that systematically debunks the entire diamond mythology. To begin with, diamonds are not "rare and exotic." Quite the opposite. The entire history of diamond "production" has been about managing and controlling an enormous over-abundance. Only the DeBeers cartel's worldwide stranglehold on diamond production and distribution keeps the price propped up. Secondly, the diamond's popularity as adornment is strictly a product of the last 60 years or so. "The most successful advertising campaign in history" began with a concerted plan to place diamonds around the necks of movie stars and British royalty in order to manufacture a demand among the general public. Thirdly, the advertising slogan "Diamonds Are Forever," rather than a testimony to their durability, was in fact invented to emotionally tie diamonds to individuals for life, so they would be too ashamed to sell them. If you're a cartel selling an extremely common and extraordinarily durable product for an exorbitant price, any substantial used market in that product just kills your future sales. DeBeers has been so successful in building demand for its product that now they can get away with laughably insulting advertisements with concepts like the "three months' salary guideline" and "I wanted to get my girl a diamond big enough that the other guys wouldn't have to get too close to see it." The exploitation of male insecurity and female materialism is so transparent that only our collective gullibility keeps them from being laughed out of business. This is just scratching the surface of a fascinating study in marketing success, but suffice it to say that if you buy a diamond it's only because DeBeers told you to. Richard Durost Southwest 177th Avenue ANALYZE THIS There were so many holes and half-truths in the "analysis" provided to WW by the Center for Informed Citizen Action ["Poor Taxes," WW, Jan. 5, 2000] that it's hard to know where to begin. The most obvious place, I guess, is with the premise. The "analysis" purports to show that Oregonians pay only a small amount of taxes for "unpopular" government programs. No definition is provided of what constitutes an "unpopular" government program, other than to limit the "analysis" to funds expended for state and federal welfare programs and foreign aid. No polling data are provided to back up the assertion that these programs are "unpopular." Apparently, the conclusion was decided upon, then programs were chosen to illustrate the conclusion. Last time I checked, nobody in Seattle was marching to "end welfare as we know it." The least popular federal program, at least with the CICA's crowd, is military spending. Included in the "analysis"? Nope. Worse yet, CICA's "analysis" fails to include numerous federal, state and local programs, all or part of which benefit the poor. Among these are Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Security Income, the portion of interest on the national debt attributable to spending on such "unpopular" programs, unemployment insurance (after all, who is poorer than somebody with no income?), the Earned Income Tax Credit, housing subsidies and many, many others. In addition, why aren't fees and selective state sales taxes--in which Oregon leads the nation--included? Not only do some of these directly benefit the poor--such as the portion of cigarette taxes which pay for the Oregon Health Plan--but they also constitute--along with business taxes, which also aren't included--the most regressive taxation scheme in our current tax system. The reason they aren't included is obvious--scoring cute political points is more important than providing real, fair, factual data on which citizens can base informed choices. Willamette Week readers, and staff for that matter, should consider carefully any information developed by organizations which have a political axe to grind. They are all too often willing to substitute the 10-second sound bite for thoughtful, complete analysis, and to sacrifice truth for ideology. Matt Evans, executive director Oregon Tax Research Northwest 2nd Avenue - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published January 12, 1999