Melaleuca No More
Hello, thank you for the article (BW, Citydesk,"Will Prop. 8 Decision Affect Idaho LGBT Community?", June 30, 2010). In particular, your mention of the large contribution made by a member of the Vandersloot family, which, evidently owns the Melaleuca corporation. My same-sex partner and I are (will soon no longer be) representatives of Melaleuca. We stood by their products, bought and used them ourselves and as we live in Washington, we were completely unaware of their involvement with the Prop 8 campaign. Had it not been for your journalism and the magic of the Internet, we would have continued to support this company which clearly has no regard for humanity or the true meaning of family values. I don't know if you are aware, but there was referendum on the ballot a couple years back here in Washington to overturn domestic partnership rights expansion and while it didn't pass, the people behind it want to keep all the donors' identities a secret. This just proves that the public needs to be aware of who is contributing money to campaigns like this so that we, as consumers, can make more informed decisions and support businesses that support us. Once again, thank you.
--Richard McLaughlin and Ronald NebekerKent, Wash.
BW: A Real Alt
Freebie weeklies get called "alternative" all the time leading to the assumption that "lefty" and "alternative" are pretty much the same thing.
If the BW keeps printing articles like Zach Hagadone's "Curiouser and Curiouser" (BW, Feature, June 23, 2010) you may well earn the label of "alternative." His objective, in-depth piece might well give some clues to Tea Party folk who need some substance beyond being vehement conservatives. It also might help liberals to learn a thing or two. I know I gained a few more facts about a subject that gets little coverage and causes us all so much confusion. Who can really argue with a desire for "sound money"?
Futbol vs. Soccer
Correct you are, Rachael. Sometimes the rest of the world does get it right (BW, Play, "Soc it to Me," Rec, June 30, 2010). You did.
Pertaining to "Medical Choices" (BW, News, June 30, 2010), RU-486, a drug that ends pregnancy, is a treatment that can only be given directly from a physician and requires no prescription. Therefore, pharmacists would not be involved in the distribution of any treatment involving RU-486. For more on this issue, as well as an update on last week's story, visit citydesk.boiseweekly.com. :