TO THE EDITOR
ANTI-SEMITISM
Because of our appreciation of the EW,
we are writing to share our concern about
the anti-Semitism displayed in the “West
Bank Farming” article (8/12).
The font for the title looks like the type
of Hebrew script used in Jewish sacred
texts. It is not a popular or journalistic
typeface but rather a religious one, and its
use in your headline subliminally connects
Judaism, the religion, with the oppression
of Palestinians. Besides, since the article is
about Palestinians, why wasn’t an Arabic-
looking font used?
We know that Kate and Joe Gessert are
sweet and well-meaning people. Their reg-
ular contributions to the EW have valuable
information. Thank you. But there are
sweet and well-meaning Americans in
Israel who could write articles about the
Israeli peace movement –– the committed
and unflagging attempts at peace and rec-
onciliation with the Palestinians –– and/or
about the effects of the Palestinians’ atroc-
ities on Israelis.
Without the balance, we are left asking:
Why only the Gessert articles and empha-
sis? It is so easy for the left to focus on
Israel negatively — when so much that is
good is also going on in Israel.
Where are the regular articles about
Kashmir? Ireland? Afghanistan? Focusing
on a vibrant, democratic, multi-racial,
multi-ethnic and multi-religious country
over and over again — only from the point
of view of some of its destructive elements
— smacks of a preoccupation with “the
Jewish problem.”
And why have the Israelis put up this
wall? Philosophically, we and many, many
other American Jews are against it. But we
live 10,000 miles from Israel and can af-
ford to think and feel this way. Look at
Americans’ reaction to 9/11 — or over-re-
action. Would Eugene/Springfield put up
with terrorists, suicide bombers, kids sling-
ing not “merely” stones but deadly spiked
sticks? What would we do? Sharon’s rea-
sons aside, the Israelis’ reasons for the wall
are not farfetched, and would most likely
be less than what our own country might
do in similarly threatening circumstances.
EW’s one-sided focus on certain aspects
of Israel is redolent of 2000 years of Jew
bashing. We know what the outcome of un-
restrained Jew bashing can look like. And
we believe that Kate and Joe, and EW’s
staff and readers, don’t want to participate
in that.
Irwin Noparstak
Joan Bayliss
Eugene
EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter was submitted in early
September but was misfiled and just re-surfaced, along
with some other letters to be typed. Our apologies for the
delay.
BEFUDDLED BUSH
Regarding the presidential debates, Mr.
Bush did not face the reality that we are in
a huge mess in Iraq. The first step is admit-
ting you have a problem, correct?
Mr. Bush was defensive, befuddled,
and seemed very tired. In all, he looked de-
feated.
Bennie Smalls
Eugene
THE HOUR HAS COME
I am so tired of hearing and reading
about Nader being a spoiler. How about in-
stead of fighting each other we look at the
people who voted for Bush? How about the
Supreme Court decision? How about Al
Gore backing down and going along with
it? How about the corruption in Florida and
the 50,000 people banned from voting
there for erroneous reasons, most of them
being black Democrats?
How about the computer voting sys-
tems ripe for corruption? How about mil-
lions of dollars buying politicians to do big
businesses’ will? How about the electoral
college negating peoples votes just be-
cause they live in the wrong color state (red
or blue)? How about the winner take all
system? How about third party candidates
not being allowed in the debates? How
about all THAT?
I think there is a lot of misplaced anger
here. Ralph Nader might be egotistical, but
damn it, I support his right to run for public
office. This is one of the greatest aspects of
our country. What is really sad is that he
should be the president of our country.
Instead of voting for the right person, we
are forced to vote for the one who isn’t
Bush, the Democrat.
I have not decided to vote for Kerry.
One thing I know for sure, I will not vote
for Bush and there is a hell of a lot more
work to do other than this one vote. The
Hopi elders say this is not the 11th hour,
this is the hour. What are you doing in it?
Pamela Driscoll
Eugene
PLEASED AS PUNCH
Now that I am reigning as the new 2004
Slug Queen, I just gotta say I am just so
proud to be here. I am pleased as punch at my
new success. Thanks to all of my screaming
supporters, especially those coming from as
far as The Dalles and Deadwood. More
thanks to The Register-Guard for the lovely
article on Saturday’s (9/18) front page. What
an honor and thrill. However, the R-G made a
few errors. My slogan is “The Slime Shall
Rise Again!” and not “The South will Slime
Again,” as printed. Also, it was the first run-
ner-up who gave out the Southern Comfort as
bribes. My gifts to the Old Queens were defi-
nitely more fittin’ and way too numerous to
record here.
And to all you Old Queens, thank you
for choosing little ol’ me.
Last but not least, major kudos to the
Eugene Fire Department for their timely
BY JONATHAN EVANS
It Costs Too Much
Measure 37 goes beyond constitutional rights.
L
urking on a the November ballot is another attempt to increase state expenses
and hurt the quality of life for Oregon residents. If approved, Measure 37 would
require the state of Oregon to “pay owners, or forego enforcement when certain
land restrictions reduce property value.”
Provisions in the U.S. and Oregon constitutions already safeguard citizens from un-
fair governmental “taking” of private land without just compensation. Measure 37 goes
far beyond these constitutional rights. It forces taxpayers to compensate landowners if
any land use decision has restricted the use of property purchased by the owner, their
parents, and even their grandparents.
Measure 37 will be extremely costly to Oregon taxpayers. According to the secretary
of state, Measure 37 will cost taxpayers up to $344 million per year in new paperwork
and red tape alone. According to the state treasurer, the final costs for payment of
claims to landowners “cannot be determined.” Measure 37 provides no funding mecha-
nism and the only way to pay for these costs would be through cuts in local services or
increased taxes.
Measure 37 is poorly written. The measure provides no guidance on its implementa-
tion, and it will lead to lawsuits, uncertainty and increased costs. The retroactive clauses
4 OCTOBER 7, 2004
are impossible to calculate, and unfair to the public. The
courts threw out a similar idea in 2000. Voters need to do
the same in November.
Join the broad-based, bipartisan opposition to
Measure 37. Farm Bureaus from across the state, including
Lane County, oppose the measure because it will increase
taxes and remove protections for prized farmland.
Conservation groups oppose Measure 37 because it will increase
sprawl and decrease our quality of life.
Small businesses and business owners oppose Measure 37 because it will increase
bureaucracy and lawsuits and make it even more difficult to obtain basic things like
building permits. More bureaucracy and red tape make it harder to do business in
Oregon. Neighborhood Associations oppose Measure 37 because it would undermine
protections against the effects of harmful development, and would provide no compen-
sation for reduced property values resulting from development. Would you want a used
car lot or fast food chain next door to your home?
So, who is in support of Measure 37? Large corporate landowners who stand to gain
millions. In researching campaign finance reports, 1000 Friends of Oregon found that
eight corporate landowners gave 72 percent, or $540,000, to support the measure.
Corporate special interests should not benefit at taxpayer expense.
This fall vote “no on 37” to safeguard land use planning in Oregon and preserve the
quality of life that Oregonians enjoy.
Jonathan Evans is a student at the UO School of Law and a member of L.A.W. Environmental Law Society