Sincerely, Grandma

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1991 letter to Barbara Roberts re Frank Gable.  Text:

Dear Governor Roberts,

I am very upset, as I’m sure many Oregonians are, with the outcome of the Gable trial.

Even though it’s obvious that Frank Gable has led a seamy life, he has a constitutional right to a fair trial in the specific charge of whether or not he killed Michael Francke.

Why did the defense ignore a crucial bit of information that was published by Phil Stanford?  I’m sure you are aware of the issue raised by Stanford’s column of 6-19-91.  Jodie Swearingen had had conversations with staff people at Hillcrest about her complicity in a murder and about her anxiety concerning it, and according to the police report she had told Mrs. X that her boy friend was involved.  Court reference to the report ended there; neither the prosecutor nor the defense asked the obvious question, “Who was your boy friend at the time of the murder?” to which she would have answered “Tim Natividad.”

What is the matter with the justice system in Oregon?  How can it be that so soon after the 4 years imprisonment of Santiago Ventura (which the “professionals” in the state justice system insisted was justified in spite of numerous pieces of evidence to the contrary) we have another case in which crucial evidence is ignored by prosecution and defense alike?

Many of us are waiting for some public statement of concern from a public figure.  Could we hear from you?

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1991 letter to Dick Singer re Measure 5.  Text:

Dear Sen. Singer:

There must be lots of voters who are shocked to learn that Measure 5--which they supported because of concern for homeowners living on low fixed incomes--was primarily benefiting owners of business properties.  And now those businesses and corporations have the nerve to go after an additional bonanza through a bill craftily called “a taxpayers’ bill of rights.”

There does need to be legislation to bring new revenues.  Otherwise Oregonians in need--the homeless, hungry, mentally ill- are going to be cast aside.  But business should be a source of such revenue, not a recipient.  Ever since 1970 the Corporation Income Tax has been going down in proportion to total tax receipts.  This should be corrected; and a commercial property tax or a gross receipts tax on businesses should be given heavy consideration.

Some of us would even welcome a restructuring of the personal income tax. BUT PLEASE don’t let the Ways and Means Committee push another gambling measure.  When Gov. Goldschmidt embraced state-sponsored lottery measures for revenue-raising purposes, many of us felt utterly disillusioned with a formerly highly credible public figure.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1990 letter to Ron Wyden re Gulf and Timber Crises.  Text:

Dear Rep. Wyden:

Gulf Crisis

I do hope that you will make it your first priority, either in a special session or in January when Congress reconvenes, to work for a resolution in the House that would give sanctions a full year to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

I have sent a copy of the enclosed letter-to-the-editor to Pres. Bush.  He has apparently not spent time reflecting on the severe physical results of war.  I do think that Neil Bush--and the children and grandchildren of the other members of the President's intimate advisory group--should be in the front lines if war does come.

Timber Crisis

There is absolutely no way to replace the special characteristics of the ancient forest, once those trees are cut.  It’s not just the trees--it’s the total ambience that brings feelings of awe, mystery, thanksgiving, glory, respect, humility, awareness that human beings are just an infinitesimal part of planet Earth.  The special forests of Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Western Canada and Alaska are about all that’s left in the world of one of its natural wonders.  I agree with those who believe these forests should be officially entered onto the lists of the World Heritage Wonders of the World, and appropriately preserved.

I’m not cold and indifferent to the problems facing timber workers, but throughout history new conditions have forced changes in tra­ditional employment.  And the timber companies themselves have periodically, without compunction, laid off workers when it suited them.  The lay-off of 2,000 millworkers and loggers reported in the Oregonian of Nov. 16 was not due to the efforts of conservationists, as many casual readers probably thought, but rather to weak building markets and to “modernization” in some plants.  Let's concentrate on harvesting the second growth, which we’ve heard so much about for many decades, and let's cherish the ancient trees.  And of course the government must give help to communities that have to face up to changes in employment.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1990 letter to Gordon Humphrey re Nicaraguan elections.  Text:

Senator Humphrey:

Why did you lie today while being interviewed on the Canadian news program on public radio?  Why did you say “and now finally after ten years they’ve had an election?”

Or are you really so uninformed that you didn’t know there was an earlier election in Nicaragua, 5 or 6 years ago, and that it was monitored by an international team of observers and judged to be fair?

Also, the vote today was a vote against the dire econo­mic conditions in Nicaragua, which are a direct result of the American embargo and of the U.S. created and subsidized Contra war, which has forced the government to direct half the budget away from important social programs that had earlier been making steady progress in the quality of life for all citizens.

The Sandinista government was never a puppet of Moscow.  It was always an independent, pragmatic body, combining free enterprise and socialism, and making changes if something did not work.  If Nicaragua had been left alone by the U.S., it would today be a model for the rest of third world countries to follow.  The U.S. has been trying to turn it back into a banana republic.  Let’s hope it doesn’t succeed.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1990 letter to Les AuCoin re aid to El Salvador.  Text:

Dear Rep. AuCoin:

I have read that there will be a bill in the House which would cut off aid to El Salvador.  I do hope that you will give it strong support, and I feel confident that you will. 

Pres. Bush has complained about press reports that he has been deceptive.  If he could be honest with himself, he would see just how much deception there has been in areas of foreign policy and also in the budget that he proposes--in terms of what it actually cuts from social programs in spite of claims he makes about support.

But perhaps the biggest deception is the pretense that the $1.5 million that our government gives every day to El Salvador has brought a diminishing of the violence directed by the military at those individuals--most of them church workers--who are trying to improve the lives of the poor.  Not at all.  Many leading newspapers across the U.S. have been warning Pres. Bush that El Salvador is a country out of control in terms of torture, intimidation, and killings ignored or even winked at by the government.  A statement signed by the leaders of nine churches representing 13 million Americans declares “our outrage over the deliberate and calculated campaign by government forces in El Salvador to intimidate and harass the churches in that country.”  Religious workers, including El Salvadoreans, Americans and volunteers from other countries, have been targeted because they favor land reform.

After ten years of broken promises from El Salvador, it is time to cut off aid.  El Salvador would be better off without our aid, which is siphoned off as “spoils” by a conscienceless military--the real power down there.

And to think what we could do with $1.5 million a day invested in housing and education.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1989 letter to George Bush re INF agreement.  Text:

Dear President Bush:

I don’t blame the Soviets one bit for threatening to abrogate the INF agreement, if the military policy of this country is so insane as to plan to “sneak in” a little abrogation of its own under the name of “modernization.”  It would appear that we would welcome the end of the INF agreement but can’t quite bring ourselves to admit it.

What in heaven’s name are we thinking of?  Here we have a chance to begin a new era in the relationship between the two superpowers--and use our mighty resources to help bring a solution to the really threatening environmental problems of the world--and we’re ready to throw it all down the drain because we can’t think of anything but weapons, weapons, weapons!

Please throw out your current military advisors and get some new ones.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1989 letter to Phil Keisling re Oregon legislation that needs his attention.  Text:

Dear Rep. Keisling:

Re: Toxics Use Reduction Bill, HR 2334

I certainly hope that you are giving your full support to the passage of this bill.  I’m not sure what the current status of the bill is.  But most of us want the legislature to face up to the crisis situation in our environment.  We can’t go on pretending that things are all right with our world.

Re: Farmworkers Collective Bargaining Act, SB 553

And also, I do urge you to give your full support to this bill.  The way that farm workers have been exploited and endangered out in the fields is due to the worst aspects of totally free enterprise.  Why should the consumers have their balanced, healthful diets at the expense of the health and well being of the workers?  If it costs more to be fair to these people who spend their days doing backbreaking work, then let’s pay that.  Who decided that it is right for the “average” American to have his camper, boat, off-road RV, etc. at the expense of certain others, whether American or not?

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

P.S. Welcome to the State Legislature.

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1988 letters to Gorbachev and Reagan re Carl Sagan’s PARADE article.  Text:

Dear Secretary General:

I have read and been moved by Carl Sagan’s article in PARADE of February 7. 

But I have also been moved deeply by the patient and persistent effort that you have been making--for changes within your own country--for a reversal of the nuclear arms race--and for a partnership with other countries, and particularly ours, to start solving the environmental, health and hunger problems of the world.

I am so happy that Carl Sagan has created this opportunity for all of us to come forward and be counted.

Please don’t give up if at times it seems your message falls on deaf ears in Washington.  There are many of us here in America who are trying to bring about policy changes on the part of the Reagan Administration.  Your leadership inspires us.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

Dear President Reagan:

I have read and am deeply moved by Carl Sagan’s article in PARADE of February 7. 

He has pointed out so well the steps that must be taken if the world is going to be able to overcome the threatened destruction.  It is very interesting that Sagan’s message is the same one that we have been hearing persistently in recent months from Secretary General Gorbachev.  Gorbachev calls for a reversal of the arms race and a partnership effort to wipe out the environmental, health and hunger threats to the world.

I know that you too express a heartfelt desire for an end to the arms race.  But there is a contradiction between your words and your drive to develop and deploy the Strategic Defense Initiative, which itself is a most serious threat to the continued existence of civilization.

I do hope that our country can enter into a partnership with the Soviet Union to help heal the wounds of the world and to rescue it from the perils it faces.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1987 letter to Bob Packwood re disarmament.  Text:

Dear Senator Packwood:

I was very sorry to read the other day that in order to get Pres. Reagan’s signature on the $9.4 billion spending bill two important arms control measures were dropped--the ban on all but the smallest nuclear tests and the requirement for resumption of compliance with the SALT II treaty.

I hope that some other bills will be rescued.  Can you please use your influence to help bring to a vote the bill prohibiting anti-satellite weapons testing?  The Soviets are ready for this, and why shouldn’t we also want to put a stop to tests that lead to an acceleration of an arms race in space?

I think also that it’s very important that Pres. Reagan be curbed in his desire to make his own interpretation of the ABM treaty.  If he wants to re-negotiate it or take the matter before the Standing Consultative Commission, that is one thing.  But to re-write it on his own is quite unacceptable in world law.  Please support the effort to require a strict interpretation.

I appreciate your recent votes opposing production of nerve gas, and hope that you will work with Sen. Hatfield to get those funds revoked.  It doesn’t make sense to rush ahead with production of a stockpile of something that is so unwelcome in Europe, and something that we are on the verge of outlawing.  The ongoing negotiations on chemical weapons should succeed, since the Soviets have signified their willingness to accept whatever inspection is necessary for monitoring a ban.

One last thing--I have read about a plan being promoted by the Dept. of Defense and FEMA to build fall-out shelters for officials at state and local level so that they can “manage” things for any survivors of a nuclear attack.  I wish you would ask them for me whether the families of those planners and managers will be in the shelters with them--or out on the streets with the rest of us dodging the radiation and fires.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1987 letter to Channel 2 re the miniseries Amerika.  Text:

Dear Mr. Hinman:

I dread the approaching airing of the miniseries AMERIKA.

I just cannot imagine any network wanting to assume responsibility for the turmoil that will result from the presentation of such a production.

Somehow a climate has developed in the past few years in our country--and I hold the current federal administration responsible to a great degree--in which some very base instincts have been allowed to emerge and even, in some cases, to flourish.  Organizers with the KKK mentality are making great strides in recruiting followers.  There are evidences of an increase in anti-Semitic and anti-Black attitudes and actions.

I think this is tied in somehow with the prevalent “hands off,” “laissez-faire,” “make government small” kind of message that we have had from the White House.  This 19th century kind of thinking was exemplified recently in a classic way by John Piacentini during the Plaid Pantry labor dispute when he stated, “If they don’t like the working conditions, they don’t have to work here.”  Many people feel free to go their bigoted way.

We know, from the experience of the chaos that resulted when Orson Welles broadcast his WAR OF THE WORLDS, that audiences do not remain objective in such situations.  We are hearing reports right now that some previewers of AMERIKA are reacting with vows that “we have to do something to prevent this kind of takeover!”  Who knows what lunatic actions may follow?

This comes at a time when we are closer than ever to the possibility of a lessening of tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.  The Soviets have made it absolutely clear in an official article published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Jan/Feb 87 issue) that they are ready for on-site inspection of whatever nature is required to monitor the reversal of the nuclear arms race--and the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles.  This could all go down the drain if Americans revert to the “evil empire” kind of thinking.

I hope that a real effort will be made by ABC to have numerous objective discussions about U.S.-U.S.S.R. relations at the same time as the series, in an effort to head off virulent anti-Soviet repercussions.  Please encourage them.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

P.S. This letter is not written by a person with a blindly adulatory attitude toward the Soviet Union.  I have been critical of various actions, particularly the heavy response to Czechoslovakia’s “socialism with a human face” in 1968, and the move into Afghanistan.  But I do think that they have come to a far better understanding than has our government of the disastrous threat to the world contained in the arms race, and particularly of a spread of that race into outer space.

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1986 letter to Quaker Oats re Nicaragua.  Text:

Dear Mr. Morgan,

I could hardly believe it when I read that the company that makes the cereal that I have loved all my life supports the Contras in Nicaragua.  I absolutely cannot bring myself to buy it any longer because I have such strong feeling about the way the Contras have conducted themselves.  Their record for torture, rape and murder is outrageous.  In the following paragraphs here I am repeating the letter that I have sent to members of Congress.  I hope that you will read through to the end.

How can Pres. Reagan have the audacity to ask for $100 million to bring down the Sandinista government when he has comfortably accepted Ferdinand Marcos as a friendly ally all these years?  Granted that Marcos made a pretty speech the other day about not wanting to shed one drop of Filipino blood.  He was smart enough to know that time had run out for him.  The truth is, however, that Marcos has many drops of Filipino blood on his hands.  He stayed in office by means of imprisonment, torture and murder.

As for the Sandinistas, it is true they’ve made a few mistakes, esp. concerning the Mesquito Indians.  But they are a popularly elected government, and citizens are not afraid to argue political issues in public.  The civilian population can carry guns.  A friend who has worked for the U.N. and A.I.D.--who has traveled and lived in many countries--visited Nicaragua in late 1985 and found much more freedom there than in the U.S. supported Philippines, Egypt and Bangladesh.  There was also much more freedom and private property and business than found in China, the Soviet Union or any other of the many communist countries visited, except perhaps Yugoslavia.

If the Contra aid passes, it will prolong and increase the suffering of the besieged Nicaraguans, as the list of Contra atrocities against the people swells.  Can’t we just leave them alone, and let them get on with their literacy and health care programs in peace?  We don’t need Nicaraguan blood on our hands.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1985 letter to President Reagan, re lack of reflection in considering Gorbechev’s test ban proposal.  Text:

Dear President Reagan,

Defense Secretary Weinberger said last night on a television news show that the decision to reject Gorbachev’s proposal for a mutual moratorium on testing was made in about ten minutes.  I can well believe that little time was spent on it.  It was a very foolish decision, but consistent with our responses to suggestions initiated by the other side.  I remember a time two years ago when you brushed aside a proposal made by the Soviets, saying, “It sounds good on the surface, but coming from them there has to be something wrong with it.”

Actually, a moratorium on testing, leading to a permanent Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, is the best step that could be taken right now.  It’s the constantly accelerating arms race resulting from testing that will sooner or later result in nuclear disaster, quite probably from an accidental or terrorist triggering somewhere in the world as proliferation gets out of control.

And to be perfectly frank, I’m a little puzzled as to what can be learned from witnessing a nuclear weapons test--your offer to the Soviets--other than the explosive weight or the “throw weight” of a weapon, which has long since been found to be meaningless.  If anyone can enlighten me, it will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1985 letter to American Express re promotional letter in poor taste.  Text:

Dear Mr. Chenault,

How could you possibly start a promotional letter by stating that a fur jacket is a gift every woman loves...?

Don’t you know that many women feel deeply offended by such an assumption?  We are horrified by the fur industry and the cruelty involved in catering to such a petty vanity-- a symbol of conspicuous consumption.  There are other good ways to stay warm in the winter.

I don’t think you are reading the pulse of America very well.  Better get your market researchers out there.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton

[sincerelygrandma]

Grandma’s 1984 letter to Vice President George Bush re Cold War posturing. Text:

Dear Mr. Bush,

When I listened to reports this morning of your comments concerning negotiation with the Soviets, ranging from the current chemical weapons talks to a hoped for renewal of nuclear weapons negotiations, I felt so agitated.  I would so like to be in an audience listening to such remarks from someone connected with the White House so that I could ask a few pointed questions and hope for an answer that had some meaning.

You feel that we have made reasonable proposals and you hope for the same from the other side.

Has the White House ever dealt in any significant way with the issue of whether or not British and French missiles should be included in discussions?  It seems eminently reasonable of the Soviets to demand that.  Why should they not be concerned about weapons of our allies?  There are no Warsaw Pact weapons excluded from talks.  Could we make a public statement to the effect that we are willing to include all Western missiles?

Has Pres. Reagan ever apologized for having insisted that we have the right to catch up with the Soviets in total throw-weight -- when he must have known (and if not it’s cause for alarm) that their heavier tonnage is actually a disadvantage, rather than an advantage for them?  You and Mr. Reagan must both have known all along that our experts made a rational decision some time back that it was better to have smaller, more accurately-targeted missiles.  And we had the technology to move in this direction.

Has Mr. Reagan ever admitted to the Soviets that he made a mistake in insisting on an agreement cutting most heavily from land-based ICBMs-- which would have made a much larger dent in the Soviets’ total defense than in ours, since over 70% of their ICBMs are land-based, while under 25% of ours are?  The Soviets are legitimately concerned about the whole picture-- land, sea and air-based missiles.

How about a little reasonableness on our side? -- and a little frankness?  Why is it that I have this feeling that Pres. Reagan deliberately made proposals that would sound good to the American public but that would be unacceptable to the Soviets?  I feel he was determined to deploy the Cruise Missile and the Pershing IIs, even though they are the most destabilizing thing to come along.

I would love to have an answer from you personally, Mr. Bush.

Sincerely,

Mary E. Bolton