A letter to the editor of the East Oregonian published on September 9:

I was very disappointed that you printed a naked picture in an apparently homosexual setting in the Sunday, Sept. 6 East Oregonian. I immediately ushered the paper to the trash to protect my children. In the future, such things will be cause for canceling our subscription.

I am also disappointed in the coverage of health care issues. It seems that a majority of political cartoons and commentary are for it - where is the balance? When opposition is covered it is done so as if persons opposing are deranged or uninformed. When intelligent, opposing argument is presented, it is couched in obscure positions. Where is your personal responsibility? (This is a critical issue in terms of your own health care and your own families.) Certainly an intelligent and fair addressing of the issue is wise; there is much at stake for all citizens. There are many ways to solve the problems and all options should be examined, not just toting one. This is especially true when closer examination of that option seems to reveal many serious concerns that should be completely worked out before it is considered for the nation.

Certainly you are intelligent enough to see the absolute merit of such an approach. We would like to see a more open, wise approach to the subject. There is no reason to take your paper if it is simply propaganda and not an intelligent discussion.

Mariann Adams
Pendleton

Here's a subsequent letter to the editor published in the same newspaper six days later:

This is in response to the letter by Mariann Adams in the Sept. 9 East Oregonian. Ms. Adams was disappointed you printed a "naked picture in an apparently homosexual setting."

Ms. Adams stated that when an opposing view is given, the person giving it is covered as "deranged or uninformed." I don't describe her opposition as deranged, but I will go as far as saying it was uninformed. The photo she was referring to, as was clearly stated in the caption, was taken by Annie Leibovitz for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. No one can definitively argue what is art; beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What can be argued is the apparent homosexual setting. The photo is of a man (John Lennon) and a woman (his wife, Yoko Ono).

People often view things according to the their own values. Perhaps Ms. Adams' pre-existing bias regarding this picture was also present in her opinions in the rest of the letter.

Bob Noack
Hermiston

Wow.