RE: "It's the Mercury's Endorsement Guide!" [Feature, Oct 22], including the endorsement of a "no" vote on Measure 92, which would create new requirements for the labeling of products made with GMOs.
DEAR MERCURY—In recommending a "no" vote on Measure 92 you say, "The science we possess on GMOs indicates they're almost certainly safe to eat." First, the long-term animal and human studies needed to show product safety simply haven't been done with GMOs. Second, studies that have been done show evidence of a variety of harmful effects. Many of us are also concerned about the damage to the environment and the health of farmworkers caused by the increased use of herbicides connected with GMOs such as "Roundup Ready" corn, and would like the information we need to vote with our pocketbooks against these practices and for producers who avoid them. As the experience of the European Union shows, labeling GMO products would add almost nothing to food costs and would allow those of us who don't want to buy GMOs to choose from a wider selection of products. You gave no real evidence for your claim that supporters of Measure 92 are dishonest about their motives. If you're right, shame on them. But we're voting on a ballot measure, not the motives of its supporters.
RE: "Media Buster! by Bill 'Buster' Calhoun" [New Column, Oct 29], a spoof on accusations that the Mercury's endorsement of a "no" vote on Measure 92 was the result of having been bought by its opponents.
DEAR MERCURY—I know your "editorial board" suggested a "no" vote on Measure 92. I assume from the Mercury's "editorial board" response by Bill Calhoun that you got a lot of blowback from this. The way I look at it, if you make an editorial stand you stick with it. Instead you write some passive-aggressive snarky article that is supposed to be funny, but only makes you look passive-aggressive and snarky. Of course all of us for Measure 92 are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists with the intelligence of dim light bulbs, at least that's what you're trying to convey. I suggest you get a pair and stand up for what you believe in instead of making a feeble attempt to mock those who disagree with you.
RE: "Beseeching a Higher Power" [News, Oct 22], regarding efforts in city hall to appeal a federal judge's ruling that they be required to return to court annually to defend progress on police reforms.
GOSH, [COMMISSIONER] STEVE [NOVICK]—So you, a mere lawyer, think the judge did something "[legally wrong] and very odd." Would that be more illegal and odder than stomping James Chasse to death in the Pearl District? Or would that be equally illegal and slightly less odd than shooting an unarmed man in the back as he was walking away from the killer? Or, would it be the same level of illegality that is exhibited by a bunch of public servants who are such whiners that they can't distinguish between the authority of a city council, which hires and fires dog catchers, and the federal government, which runs a nation and controls the fates of hundreds of millions of people?
Charlie Hales, Amanda Fritz, Steve Novick, and anyone else who thinks fighting Judge [Michael] Simon gives them a shred of credibility have lost sight of the reason for the judge's involvement in the city's affairs in the first place: the total failure of the police department to control its officers, and the total failure of the city council to control its police department. I will vote against you from now until the end of time, and I'm fairly sure that I am not alone. You people need to stop pretending the little fiefdom you enjoy at city hall extends past your noses, because it doesn't.
A LITTLE HARSH, maybe, Angry, but we salute the gusto. You get this week's Mercury letter of the week, complete with two tickets to the Laurelhurst Theater, where anger is something people are usually pretending to have.