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. NO SYMPATHY After reading your article about the sisterhood pyramid scam ["Sisterhood Scam," WW, Jan. 19, 2000], I was not quite sure as to what you wanted the reader to feel. Outrage? Sympathy for the victims? Sorry, you did not reach me. These women who chose to make a quick buck on the backs of their "sisters" won't get any sympathy from me. Perhaps you had the idea that they are somewhat representative of the demographic that you target in your readership: comfortable middle-class with some higher education, probably professional. If these women each had $5,000 to burn on some get-rich-quick scheme and are so greedy and lacking in common sense and a moral compass, they deserve to be taken. I save my outrage for the exploitation of the truly weak and disadvantaged of humanity. Whoever said "You can't cheat an honest (wo)man" was right. I have heard radical feminists say that everything wrong with the world is the fault of men, even in an all-woman group. So I am sure that we will hear the same notions spouted this time around. So much for "empowerment"...blame men again. Leonard Cogan Northeast 10th Avenue TAKE MY ADVICE, PLEASE The article on Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz indicated that she may have trouble getting re-elected ["Why Are So Many People Fuming Over Serena Cruz?," WW, Jan. 12, 2000]. Another item in the same issue may provide a clue to what she can do instead. Ross Island Sand & Gravel's Robert Pamplin Jr., it seems, now owns a radio station and is paying big bucks to hire talk radio hosts ["Dwight Flight," page 6]. Since Serena Cruz received $750 from R.B. Pamplin Corporation during her campaign, perhaps Pamplin can offer Cruz one of those six-figure salaries he's offering to host talk shows. Unless, of course, she's of no use to him without a vote. Or perhaps she can become a high-paid lobbyist for Tom Walsh and Walsh Construction (campaign contributions totaling $1,500) so that she can lobby local governments for more corporate welfare, otherwise known as politically correct infrastructure and "smart-growth" projects. Good luck. Bob Tiernan Gresham THANKS FOR DOING YOUR HOMEWORK As a reunited birth mother and supporter of Oregon's Measure 58, I want to thank you for your positive article "The Bogus Adoption Argument" [500 Words, Jan. 19, 2000] regarding open records for adopted persons. Little by little, people are beginning to realize that, regardless of hearsay, birth parents have not been promised confidentiality. Soon, I hope that they will also realize that open records do not cause higher abortion rates. Some of the journalists who have made that erroneous claim obviously have not done sufficient research in the open-records states, Alaska and Kansas, to learn the error of their assumptions. Patricia Horn Woodstock, Georgia UNDER HER SKIN Kim Morgan should be deeply embarrassed to have authored the insipid, insensitive piece of bloody "fluff" titled "Of Mink and Women" [WW, Jan. 12, 1999]. Ms. Morgan claims she "honors" dead animals by wearing them. Would she likewise "honor" the victims of the Holocaust (were she aware of it) by displaying lampshades made of human skin? Good thing Kim loves to "pet" herself, as no feeling, thinking person would want to touch her. And yes, Kim, lots of people care about chickens and cows and, therefore, eschew eating them and using the by-products of their slaughter. Kim, you are "wicked." Wickedly callous and ignorant. And your cutesy writing style makes me vomit. Honestly, Kim, few people are going to give a "rat's ass" about you after reading your offensive article. Marilyn Mangion Northwest Lovejoy Street SIMPLY UNCIVILIZED I was disappointed to see Kim Morgan's piece glorifying the killing of animals for fur ["Of Mink and Women," Jan. 12, 2000]. Ms. Morgan seemed to particularly despise mink. I can't quite figure out why she would have such a problem with this animal. Surely no compassionate person can condone keeping inquisitive creatures, like the mink, in tiny cages with no physical or mental stimulation. Surely no decent person can condone gassing mink just to make frivolous luxury products that no one needs. Those of us who care about the environment have even more reasons to dislike the fur industry. Just last month a fur farmer in Washington was found to be contaminating local water supplies. The Marr mink farm was fined $24,000. Animal waste from the farm was polluting local streams. Fur coats have no place in civilized society. That is why fur sales are down by half from 10 years ago. Hopefully even the fashion media will be able to look beyond their own vanity and see the bigger picture. John P. Goodwin Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade Dallas, Texas BIG FUR WEIGHS IN I thoroughly enjoyed reading Kim Morgan's "Of Mink and Women" [Jan. 12, 1999]. Yes, fur is warm and beautiful, and as Ms. Morgan pointed out, it is common for people to support wearing rabbit or leather because they think the entire animal is eaten by humans. However, we don't eat the entire steer or rabbit or fish or chicken and never have. That job goes to the carnivores, mink included. Animals raised for fur reduce "waste" from our food production, over a billion pounds a year in North America. Mink consume these byproducts, reducing and transforming this waste into pelts for clothing, fine oils, organic fertilizer and protein meal. Everything is used. Each full-length fur coat represents 2.5 tons of recycled "waste" from the leftovers of the production of our dinner. Products made from wild animals support wildlife-management programs which maintain a balance between animal populations and habitat, infusing value into wildlife so people live off the bounty of nature. This is sustainable use, which is supported by every major environmental organization in the world. The efforts of the fur industry, which includes such diverse components as indigenous trappers and hunters, fur farming families, designers, manufacturers and retailers, result in an exquisite natural insulator, a fabric that is used in some of the world's most beautiful garments. You can feel comfortable in fur. Teresa Platt Executive Director Fur Commission USA Coronado, Calif. RECYCLING CRUELTY While visiting family in New York over the holidays, I was shocked by the number of men and women adorned with fur--fur coats, hats, gloves, scarves--and that was only the outerwear. As I watched the display in horror, I was comforted in the thought that I lived in the enlightened Pacific Northwest, where we have cast aside animal skins for Polartec. My comfort turned to disgust, however, when I read Ms. Morgan's article discussing fur wearing ["Of Mink and Women," Jan. 12, 1999]. While I agree that recycling fur is better than buying it new, both perpetuate the same evil--namely, exploiting animals for human use. Despite Ms. Morgan's contentions, it shouldn't matter if the animal is endangered, has big brown eyes or runs amuck over the countryside; wearing any fur is unnecessary and cruel. We no longer need to slip our hands into "furry little pelts" to survive cold winter days. Whether the fur is new or old, the sad fact remains that numerous living sentient beings gave their lives (either traumatized by a blow to the cranium or electrically shocked so as to not damage the pelt) for "fashion." Haven't we come further than this? While it's impossible to live a cruelty-free existence, I am disappointed that Willamette Week would publish an article supporting the needless destruction of animals for "remembrance and warmth." Just because "recycling" is a mantra of our time, let's not be caught up in the hype. Murder is murder, whether it occurred 20 years or two weeks ago. Rob Roy Smith Southwest Moss Street - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published February 2, 2000