September 8th, 2010
Inbox1 comment
September 1st, 2010
Inbox5 comments
August 25th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
August 18th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
August 11th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
August 4th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
July 28th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
July 21st, 2010
Inbox0 comments
July 14th, 2010
Inbox3 comments
July 7th, 2010
Inbox0 comments
[December 19th, 2001] LET THE INQUISITION BEGIN
While I can only speak for myself, many in our community have expressed disappointment and, in some cases, outrage at the continuing refusal of Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker to cooperate with federal authorities in the interview of foreigners requested by the U.S. attorney general [see "Ripped City," WW, Dec. 5, 2001, and "Dear Vera...," WW, Dec. 12, 2001]. It appears that Chief Kroeker's main reason for his refusal to cooperate is that he follows and "listens" to no one else but the city attorney.
The opinion of the city attorney in this case appears to be not well-researched, too academic and completely out of sync with current realities in the war on terrorism. He merely looked at the guidelines for the interviews and decided it is illegal to cooperate. He maintained his position even after he was given a copy of the actual questionnaires.
Regardless of the legalistic views and statutory interpretation of the city attorney, it is clear to me that both city officials are sadly unmindful of the following facts:
(1) America was deliberately and barbarically attacked by terrorists who come from Middle East countries, some as students and others with INS violations.
(2) These interviews are voluntary and designed to track down and to prevent further terrorist activities.
Clearly, the interviews are just one of the realistic and logical means of obtaining information to combat terrorism. No civil liberties or rights appear to be at risk. Innocent people, therefore, have no reason to fear.
Alfonso G. Acosta
Southwest Heath Place
THE LEACHING OF NORTHEAST
It was interesting to read in the pages of the recent WW about two segregationists here in Portland ["The Flickering Torch of Racism," WW, Dec. 12, 2001]. One was that slimeball Tom Metzger--who seems happy to show you can't keep a good racist down. But I also found writer Chris Lydgate's response to complaints on Lydgate's article on the gentrification of Inner Northeast Portland [Mailbox, Dec. 12]. Evidently Lydgate seems to feel it's important to keep all African-American residents concentrated in one part of town, rather than their feeling free to live where they want (possibly closer to jobs in the suburbs).
That certainly sounds suspiciously like segregation to me.
When I moved to Northeast Portland more than 20 years ago, the area wasn't "all-black." It wasn't 10 years ago, and it isn't today. This part of the city has always had a diverse population. I've seen my block go from older, mostly white families to a more diverse mix of younger families. And I see a lot more African Americans attending neighborhood association meetings than I did a decade ago.
If you want to report on what's bad in this part of town, try this: In the last 20 years, Fred Meyer's, Albertson's and Thriftway have all bailed out of the neighborhood. (Safeway, to its credit, is still here--although the store is in sad shape.) The bus service is still substantially worse than in other parts of town. The Northeast police precinct that opened with much fanfare a few years ago...is now closed evenings and weekends. These are stories.
John Lorentz
Northeast Mallory Avenue
RAILROADED
In "Dog. Gone." [WW, Nov. 28, 2001], Phil Dawdy joins Multnomah County Animal Control and the National Animal Interest Alliance to concoct an imagined epidemic of vigilante dog snatchings and discredit the entire animal-welfare movement.
advertisement
MCAC kills many adoptable dogs and falsifies records to hide that fact. It is under attack for those practices. MCAC Director [Gary] Hendel stops at nothing when attempting to discredit his critics.
The NAIA is a self-described "animal user" group formed by vivisectionists, furriers, breeders and others who profit from animals' lives. It is on a mission "to destroy the menace" of those who suggest that "animal users" might not give their animals' welfare the highest of priorities. Dawdy's primary informant [Patti] Webb is its local spokesperson.
Some might think that these facts would give reason to doubt Hendel's and Webb's claim that we are under attack by a "ragtag army of animal activists" roaming the streets to liberate dogs from "bad owners." Not Dawdy. He reports these unsupported charges as gospel.
In my years of animal-welfare work, I've never met a "latter-day John Brown," never been invited to participate in a midnight "freelance rescue," and never spotted the tracks of a canine underground railroad. All of the dogs I have rescued from otherwise needless death have been obtained lawfully from animal-control agencies, including--until Hendel began his current program of retaliation against his critics--MCAC.
Dawdy's story again proves that accuracy takes a back seat to entertainment at Willamette Week.
Gail R. O'Connell-Babcock
Tigard
Philip Dawdy responds:
In my conversation with Ms. O'Connell-Babcock prior to the publication of "Dog. Gone," I asked her for evidence that Animal Control falsifies its records. She offered none.
THE NEXT BEST FRIEND
So, the con man Bob Orians jump-starts James Nolan's son's car, and Mr. Nolan is so struck by his kind act that he thinks Mr. Orians is a stand up guy [Letters, WW, Dec. 5]. Mr. Nolan then goes on to assassinate the character of Nigel Jaquiss for writing his well-researched but very derogatory article on Mr. Orians in Willamette Week. Mr. Nolan's naiveté is on par with that of a small child.
Like all prolific con men, I am sure that Mr. Orians is a very likable person. He has to be, to secure the trust of his next victim. I am sure that all of this worship and praise has not gone unnoticed by Mr. Orians. If I were Mr. Orians, I would definitely place Mr. Nolan on my radar screen as a future source of funding.
Steven Conner
Southeast 150th Avenue
HANG ON ST. FRANCIS
I have no argument with anything in Brian Libby's "Requiem for St. Francis" [WW, Dec. 5., 2001] in terms of exterior architecture. I'd just like to point out that it will be replaced by low-income housing, with more rooms than there were before. I delivered Meals on Wheels to the St. Francis and know its insides--small, dingy, often smelly non-air-conditioned rooms where many residents spent all of their time. The replacement will be a huge quality-of-life improvement.
As Tom Waits said, "Such a crumbling beauty--aw, there's nothing wrong with her a hundred dollars won't fix." The price is a bit higher, but worth it.
Michael Wells
Northwest Savier Street
RECENT COMMENTS ON “Letters”
