fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password

Letters, May 29

Editorial irresponsible

Making fun of a proposed law without relating facts is irresponsible.

The New York Daily News’ satirical editorial (May 21) on a proposed ban in parts of New York City on fur used in clothing, despite puns and wordplay, was silly and simpering. And the “slippery slope” fear analogy between mink’s fur and cow’s milk was ludicrous.

Instead of wasting words pointing out that no one had sought the opinion of animals used for meat, eggs and dairy for sustenance, it could have pointed out how few people on the planet are in dire of need of warmth from the fur of minks, rabbits, foxes or dogs. It could have pointed out that Asia sells the world fur from slaughtered dogs, which pet lovers may not know.

It might have revealed how the stripped carcasses of harmless rabbits are hung on an assembly line. It could have described the misery of caged wild animals and how they are electrocuted, to keep the pelt unmarred, with a metal clamp on the muzzle and an electric rod in the anus. These are unpleasant facts, yes, but such a shallow editorial slant needs some truth to balance its facetiousness.

Janelle Davidson


Can’t afford PERS cut

I work for the Oregon Department of Human Services and I am currently of retirement age. Government employees’ wages are lower than those in the private sector, but this is offset by a small pension plan. I contribute to my retirement package. A mandatory 6% is deducted from my wages each month, which is put into my IAP retirement account.

In 2007, Oregon’s retirement liability was fully funded. Then the 2008 economy crashed. I lost almost everything. While I and other low-wage workers are still struggling from the effects of the recession, top earners and corporations have recovered. However, the Legislature is trying to balance their budget on the backs of state employees. They propose to divert 1% of the IAP to pay current retirees: 6% of my wages is diverted to my IAP, but only 5% will be deposited into my retirement account. This is a pay cut.

I hope to retire when I am 77. My pension is 22% of my final wage plus my IAP and I will be unable to maintain my modest standard of living. I hope to stay above the poverty line. I cannot afford to retire on any less than what I anticipated.

Barbara Walsh


Webletters Graphic.jpg