Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Nov. 30: Long live the Oregon Bowl

Register-Guard
·3 min read
RG Letters to the Editor icon

Spoiler alert

I took my grandson to see “The Eternals” and selected seats H2 and H3. No other seats in that row were selected when I did so. I was quite unpleasantly surprised when the adjacent seats were occupied.

None of the occupants were masked. Why aren't adjacent seats blocked against occupancy by other parties? We should have at least one unoccupied seat between us and the next party. Haven't the theaters heard of COVID-19? Oregon COVID- 19 guidance suggests at least six feet of spacing indoors.

I will not return to local theaters unless this issue is addressed.

Duncan Rhodes, Eugene

Looking beyond the mainstream media

Steven E. Hunnicutt wrote a typical left-wing rant about Kyle Rittenhouse. He asks, "Why would a 17-year-old need an AR-15?" Need is irrelevant. People don't need a Tesla that can go from 0 to 60 in under three seconds. But they can buy one and drive it on public roads.

Hunnicutt: Letters: Where were Rittenhouse's parents?

Another of Hunnicutt's questions: "Why would a 17-year-old go to another state?" In Rittenhouse's case, another state is just a few miles away and he has ties with the community to which he traveled.

Hunnicutt states: "Rittenhouse was walking around with an AR-15. What did he think was going to happen?" He was probably thinking about the same as did Mr. Grosskreutz (who hasn't been charged yet) and all the other armed defenders and protesters. Rittenhouse was simply the unfortunate and unpredictable target of a mentally unstable person who threatened to kill him and then attacked him. Events cascaded from there.

Rittenhouse's primary error was acting contrary to the United States Concealed Carry Association's rule of thumb: Do not go somewhere with a gun that you would not consider going without a gun.

Hunnicutt should look beyond the initial, unsubstantiated allegations made by mainstream media.

Peter E. Loewy, Eugene

A fitting name for a long rivalry

In reference to this year’s Oregon-Oregon State game, Don Kahle’s always-interesting Friday column carries many suggestions for an ongoing title for this 125-year-old football rivalry. While I look forward to this particular game, I have never much cared for the title “Civil War.” I like the idea of a regional rivalry but think we have plenty of reminders of the strife-filled world we live in without being reminded of it when we watch a football game.

For local stories that matter, subscribe today.

Many of the suggestions for a new name for this annual game between neighbors still include references to sports-themed violence (Oregon War, Kill-or-be-killed, the Uncivil War), others are tongue in cheek (The Toilet Bowl, The Better Wetter game), or the slightly humorous (Clash and Dash, the Burgerville Blackberry Shake Game).

The best title is “The Oregon Bowl.” Some may think that isn’t interesting, but I think it's perfect. It is descriptive, noting it is an intra-Oregon game, and best of all it states that both UO and OSU were in a bowl game. Whoever wins or loses, we were "bowl eligible.”

Dennis Lees, Eugene

Letters should be 200 words or fewer and sent with the writer’s name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to rgletters@registerguard.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and maybe published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.

This article originally appeared on Register-Guard: Letters: Long live the Oregon Bowl