While you're at it tolerate me, too
To the editor:
In response to your April 30 editorial regarding the "poster-rippers" "cowardly method for expressing their opinion," with regard to your quandary over "what motivated those students to wreck somebody else's work," consider this: I will be forever grateful that the people who were "the greatest generation" were motivated to "wreck somebody else's work."
What prompted me to respond to your editorial was not that the position you took was wrong; it was the insulting, dismissive tone in which it was delivered. I would like to commend those brave students who stood up to the crass illegitimi in the school-rules department for doing their part, peacefully.
Children will be children, and fads come and go. The adults in charge are supposed to know better, and do better. Allowing those people to be in charge was our fault. Please, let's teach "tolerance" to those who seem incapable of tolerating me.
Though we know there are many happy, productive, even well-adjusted homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics, even those who molest squirrels in the park, these people are the exception. I think most of us would agree that these are not the sorts of things we would like our children to have to deal with growing up, and in life.
Because of this, allowing the blatantly homosexual agenda propaganda to, not only flourish and be encouraged, but be "applauded," is deplorable, "and, well, just plain wrong."
Tolerate me. If you don't get in my face, I won't get in yours. I believe that homosexuals, just like every other student, should be allowed to put up any poster they want so long as the rules allow it. Pro-homosexual agenda propaganda should not be allowed.
This includes the dishonestly named, school-sanctioned, Gay Straight Alliance Club. There is no way to predict the future impact of non-violent, seemingly small, political acts.
I "applaud" those "poster-rippers." Thank you, and thank you Rosa Parks for not going to the back of the bus. Perhaps some need to consider the possibility (even though it may seem a bit "farfetched and silly" of previously unconsidered "broader truths."
There was no 'secret' meeting
To the editor:
Steve Brocato, Sam Bass, Steve Bogart and I met in the City Council chamber on April 27 to discuss budgeting. Our meeting has been labeled "secret." Not so.
I arranged the meeting with the city manager's secretary. The written "guidelines and policy" on use of the council chamber provides: "We are pleased to be able to share our facility with you and hope you will find everything needed to make your meeting a success."
I was pleased to use the room because it is suitably equipped and met our needs. The meeting has been incorrectly described as subject to the Oregon Public Meetings Law. Again, not so.
The intent of that law is to keep "an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made." The law provides further: "Meeting" means the convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter."
There was no deliberation toward a decision of any kind. I was there to learn about budgeting in general. It was informative. And it was appropriate.