|
SADNESS COMPOUNDED
I, Valentina Babichenko, the mother of Oleg Babichenko, along with my relatives and Russian friends, cannot easily and indifferently read your newspaper's articles about Oleg and about others who have come to America from the former USSR ["Who Killed Oleg Babichenko?" WW, Nov. 25, 1997]. They are full of lies and inaccurate statements about Oleg, putting him and other Russian people in a bad light. This Willamette Week article, as well as articles in other newspapers, creates the impression that Russians in general are thieves, killers and criminal people. We are concerned about the police officers and news reporters who so freely and easily talk and write about the "bad" Russian immigrants. We understand that among us there can be some who steal cars or do wrong things, as in any ethnic group. However, the majority of Russians who have come here are honest, hardworking, Christian people, many of whom have begun their own businesses and are contributing to the growth of the American economy. As Oleg's mother, it is painful to bear this tragedy that has involved my son, but that sadness is compounded when reading a newspaper article filled with lies, knowing that people are going to read and believe these untruths. Our family came to America in 1990, and within two months Oleg started working as a painter for a construction company. After three years he had obtained his commercial license and began driving a truck. He worked hard, but his work demanded that he travel a lot. Due to some family circumstances it was necessary for him to quit that job, so he began working in a body shop as a painter doing finishing work. One month later Oleg decided that that job was not for him and so he returned to work as a truck driver. Vancouver police officer Scott Creager has stated that Oleg may have been involved in the dirty business of car thievery. This statement is totally and completely untrue!! He has no proven facts upon which to base this, and statements like this should never be made, much less printed, without any factual proof. Most of Oleg's time was spent driving on American roads, with no time left to have anything to do with the "Car Business." I, my relatives, and friends in the Russian community would like to know what really happened to Oleg that day. Oleg's murderer(s) are out there, but someone wants to blame it on a suicide or a careless handling of a bomb. We are very thankful to the FBI, the police and the American society for their effort in investigating this story. We hope to find out the truth about what actually happened, and that the facts will then be made public. Valentina Babichenko, Southeast 131st Court
Vancouver, Wash.
IDEALISM VS. FUNDAMENTALISM
Thank you for your puff piece on Craig Rosebraugh ("Saving the World, One Cat at a Time," WW, Dec. 3, 1997). A few years ago a group of similarly "impassioned, idealistic, and unwilling to compromise" people were involved in similar types of protest here in the Rose City. Unfortunately they were anti-abortion so their "unwilling[ness] to compromise" was called "fanaticism," being "impassioned" was called "hate," and their "idealism" was called "fundamentalism." We, too, were "fiercely living [our] beliefs" when we did sit-ins at abortion clinics (and sat through the resultant jail sentences), but that was called "forcing our religion down others' throats." When we were "activists walking our talk," we were not given the leeway to be a vegan wearing leather. The slightest perceived hypocrisy was boldly highlighted. When an abortuary was torched, as an Oregon slaughterhouse mentioned in this story was, no press described it as "monkey wrenching." Rather, it was equated with the Oklahoma City bombing. I, myself, was also the recipient of a Scarlet Letter "S" (for "stalker") by a Multnomah County court for doing two of what Craig's group calls "house demos." This despite the fact that I had invited police two weeks prior to the events. If I'd only known to choose a more politically correct belief system, I, too, could have had the organization I was a part of called "a social-justice nonprofit" instead of a "terrorist cell." Actually, it is nice to see someone who cares enough to do what Craig Rosebraugh is doing--even if I don't believe as he does about animal rights. All I can do, though, is warn him that when the System tires of him sufficiently to overcome their patronizing attitude toward his as-yet politically correct cause, the newspaper puff pieces will end and the Law will deal with him in earnest. What was sauce for us geese, will be sauce for his ganders. Good luck! Paul deParrie, Northeast Sandy Boulevard
FOLLOW THE REAL LEADER
Although I found the internal discussion of animal research both substantive and interesting ["Saving the World, One Cat at a Time," WW, Dec. 3, 1997], I was struck by the absurdity of basing your cover story on a 25-year-old parental-supported activist ("he was a quiet and studious kid") whose political awakening was spawned by punk rock. Frankly, in both tactics and philosophy, Craig Rosebraugh sounds like most of my college classmates, myself included. Despite the latent sarcasm and criticism in "Saving the World, One Cat at a Time," the story effectually publicizes and legitimizes the group's political activity--exactly the boost I'm sure they have been hoping for. After reading the rest of the Dec. 3 issue, I wondered why you did not choose the Tom Leedham interview ("Team Leader") as a cover story. This is a man who might be the next president of one of the largest, most powerful, and certainly most maligned unions in America. Organized labor rarely gets much press outside of polarizing issues like strikes and representation campaigns. The interview seemed the perfect opportunity to educate the public on much broader union issues: reform and corruption, the use of members' dues, and probably the most important strike of this decade. Animal rights is a very important issue, and it is not my intention to offer any personal offense, but the juxtaposition of these two activists was too much to overlook. Despite wearing a plaid shirt and full head of hair, I believe Tom Leedham and his current activities merit greater journalistic attention than the photo-friendly Craig Rosebraugh. Cory Albright, Southeast 37th Avenue
QUESTION AUTHORITIES
Though I loved your cover photo, your story on the Liberation Collective was quite disappointing. You wrongly implicate the collective for focusing all of their "energy on one neighborhood hospital and four cats." This statement needs clarification. Although not a member, I participated in a number of different actions with the group, including demonstrations against McDonald's, Nike, Schumacher's Furs, and yes indeed, Good Samaritan Hospital. The collective also put together an anti-vivisection conference last spring. Although I too question the group's obsession with Good Sam, I am thankful that they have informed me of what is going on in my own neighborhood. Changing public perception about animal testing may indeed be "absurd" and "futile" as long as the mainstream media and the "lefty" press continue to perpetuate disinformation by parroting statements and achievements of vivisectors and the biomedical industry. (I am very skeptical of Good Sam's benign descriptions of the cat experiments and the alleged death of only one cat.) Your list of "Medical Breakthroughs Due to Animal Research" seemed like a biomedical-research institution press release. Clearly when hundreds of millions of dollars are spent and millions of animals are sacrificed for medical "progress," someone will inevitably discover a treatment and point to the use of animals as proving to be critical. Yet a significant amount of drugs that make it to the market are later pulled off the shelves due to their deleterious effects on humans. It is obvious that animal testing does not keep dangerous drugs away from the public, and additionally it may prevent useful drugs from becoming available. Why not print a list of drugs that were proven safe for animals and yet were dangerous for humans? It could start with Thalidomide, which deformed hundreds of newborns after proven "safe" in animal tests. Next it could list the delay for many years of the polio vaccine or the cigarette warning label due to inconclusive tests on animals. This list of failures would be equally as long as "breakthroughs." Vivisection, like so many other things, is about money and retaining the Status Quo. You do an injustice to your readers by printing the words and deeds of vivisectors as sacrosanct. I would expect the questioning of information released by any industry, whether hi-tech, timber or medical. I hope to see more balanced coverage next time. Philip Goff, Northwest Portland
ANGST FROM ANOTHER ANGLE
Where do I begin? I'll preface my remarks with the disclaimer that I am a candidate for state representative of District 14 (Southeast Portland). Cynics could misconstrue the following tirade as politician bullshit. But it comes from the same angst that [Greg] Jorgensen feels, albeit with a different perspective [Letters, WW, Dec. 3, 1997]. I empathize with Greg and the 35 percent he loses from his paycheck each payday. Nobody likes to pay taxes, nobody! There are some, though, who are willing to pay if their taxes are buying "something" of value. I believe we get value from our taxes every day. To realize this, it doesn't take a leap of faith, merely an adjustment of thought. Most citizens look to the tangible symbols of big government to define public goods--new courthouses, roads, computer systems, for example. The media reinforces that pattern of thought, because it highlights those symbols, especially if those symbols happen to cost too much or don't work properly. That's only fair, you're doing your job. Seldom, however, do we or the media consider the intangibles. Next time you take a drink of water from a water fountain, pause for a minute and ask yourself why you don't get sick. Next time you drive your car home on a rainy night, ask yourself how you got there safely. Were the stoplights working? Were the road markers visible? Were other drivers following the same laws you did? Heck, next time you get a parking ticket, think about it as the "threat" or incentive that led a person to vacate that parking spot for you in the first place. These are examples of government "services" or public goods we take for granted, but from which we benefit nonetheless. There are many more. Like Greg, I'm anxious and frustrated that everything isn't ideal according to my specifications: schools could be better if only we invest in them more and hold them more accountable; corporations could pay a fairer share of the state tax burden; apartment rentals and home prices could be more affordable. Greg and I can do something about it. I went to an X-PAC meeting last night (Wednesday), held each month at a tiny cafe on Southeast Division Street. X-PAC bills itself as the political action committee of generation X'ers. The place just barely had room to fit the standing-room-only, wall-to-wall crowd of more than 50 people, of which all but maybe six are age 36 or younger. We discussed campaign-finance reform with an OSPIRG activist, an ACLU fundamentalist, and a state senator. At least 10 candidates for various political races were present. More than half are X-Packers. Why the young candidate boom? Maybe it's an outgrowth of the excitement generated by the Erik Sten campaign; maybe it's the pioneering spirit of Oregonians; or maybe, just maybe, the candidates really care about where we Oregonians are heading. If Greg Jorgensen doesn't like the system he's under, he could take some of his "well-paid" salary and use it to educate citizens on what he believes in. The alternative is to sulk and withdraw. Jason Dimen, Southeast Salmon Street |
