Established
in 1937
|
Letters to the Editor
(Editor’s Note: Views and commentary,
including statements made as fact, are
strictly those of the letter-writers.)
* * *
Typed, double-spaced letters written solely to this newspaper and/or Website are considered for publication. Hand-written letters that are double-spaced and legible
also can be considered.
Cards of thanks are not accepted as letters.
* * *Unhappy in valley? Road goes in -- and out
From Ellis Couron
Cave JunctionI came here in 1970 looking for a quiet place to get back to my country roots when I retired.
I didn’t come here with the idea of changing anything to suit my way of thinking. As a result, the wife and I bought 25 acres of land that at one time had a forest, but due to a serious fire that went through here in 1964 there were only a half-dozen trees left, and the rest was in what is called buck brush.
During the years I have had the land cleared twice, and have planted more than 7,000 trees in an effort to improve the land and maybe give back to the valley part of the forest that was once here. In any case, every tree growing now is one that wasn’t here before. My message is that I have tried to fit in and improve the valley without trying to change the people who lived here and or their lifestyles.
For those who have come here from wherever and done nothing for this valley but whine and snivel over what they see going on here and spending their time getting in the way and causing trouble, I say this:
I don’t like them bringing their prejudices and big-city principles into this country community and trying to change the people and their way of doing things. In case these whiners didn’t notice or their memory is faulty, the road they came in here on is not a one-way street, and I have not heard of any of them being permanently anchored here.
So if they are all that unhappy with conditions in our valley that they have to complain weekly in the local paper with their long-winded diatribes, it’s probably time for them to motor their anchor on down the road and give some other poor country folks the benefit of their extensive knowledge of trees, logging, clear-cuts, water sheds, bridges and the like.
From Illinois Valley Safe House Alliance (IVSHA),
Chris Mallette, executive director and Josephine County Domestic Violence Council co-chairman; Mae Beth Williams, IVSHA board chairman; Olivia Taylor-Young, IVSHA board member
Cave JunctionTo characterize the sexual assaults and murders of young women and little girls in Colorado and Pennsylvania as school violence is to misunderstand and mischaracterize what actually occurred.
Neither of the assailants, Duane Morrison and Charles Roberts, were students: disgruntled, disturbed or otherwise. They were not driven by revenge or retaliation over real or imagined slights. They were not angry at anyone in the schools they chose to attack.
Morrison and Roberts were predators who targeted schools because they believed they’d supply easy prey for their planned sexual assaults.
The president has decided to organize a summit on school violence in response to these latest attacks. Illinois Valley Safe House Alliance agrees that school violence is a horrendous problem that must be confronted, and that this particular type of summit is long overdue.
At the same time, it is equally important not to pigeonhole these latest tragedies as acts of school violence while overlooking the larger picture. What are being labeled “the latest school shootings” were, in truth, deliberate, targeted attacks against young females that coincidentally took place on school grounds. Any summit on school violence is meaningless unless it also examines the overall issue of violence against women and girls.
Among women who have been raped, nearly 60 percent were first raped in childhood and nearly 30 percent experienced their first or only sexual assault when they were younger than 11. According to the May 2003 report, “Rape in Oregon: A Report To The State,” by Kilpatrick, D.G. & K.J. Ruggiero: Approximately 13.4 percent across the country and 17.5 percent of women currently living in Oregon have been the victim of forcible sexual assaults … and this estimate does not include attempted, alcohol- or drug-facilitated, incapacitation or statutory rapes.
Sexual violence is a pervasive evil. As a nation, it is imperative we recognize that. Again, while these latest shootings and murders took place on school grounds, the targeted young women and girls were indeed victims of sexual violence. In order to appropriately address these tragedies, we believe the president must include an examination of violence -- specifically sexual violence -- against women and girls as a major component of the planned summit.
He calls it ‘Bio Bull,or Bio my eye ...’
From Paul Taylor
SelmaWhile being billed by some as a panacea for forest management, “biomass” is in reality just another Big Timber “scorched forest” policy, and it is promoted in the name of environmental concern.
Don't be fooled by the term “biomass,” as they are using it to fool us. It’s not new, it’s not environmentally sound, and it’s not without serious problems.
The stark reality is that “biomass” is just another wood-fired boiler used to produce electricity for the timber industry; that is, until it is more profitable to just burn the trees, sell electricity and forget selling timber. I have heard that a mill up north has done just that.
There is more money in burning wood than selling it for lumber now that fuel prices have changed.
Perhaps we should put little steam engines in every home to generate our own electricity. Maybe we could get a grant. A valley full of steam engines would do wonders for our air quality during an inversion next winter.
Somehow, burning the forest to save the forest seems to fly in the face of logic. The one and only thing that will help save the forests from fire is a more-than-adequate first-strike force. That is the only thing that will save us from fire.
Has anyone noticed that much of the area that was set as a backfire during the last big one was very, very sparse with vegetation? I guess we all have different ideas of what a forest is.
Will corporations be able to sell forest “biomass” and ship it to other areas? Are there “biomass” futures and “biomass” stocks? How much “biomass” equals a barrel of oil? Are we going to let “biomass” clean our forests down to dirt and rocks with a tree here and there?
Will we have giant vacuum trucks sucking up every last pine needle? It will take thousands of trucks on our already overcrowded Hwy. 199 to ship our forest debris. Maybe we will get a highway upgrade at last if we let them sell everything.
Can we really trust industrial forces to manage our forests? Absolutely not. This is not about wise use of the forest or fire prevention: It is about corporate welfare and greed on the backs of the people. It is about clean water, clean air, clean rivers, and forests with trees in them.
It seems pretty obvious that this issue involves turning our forests into industrial fuel. Let’s stop this nonsense and restore our forests and watershed, not destroy them. We can restore it by leaving it alone.
We used to have a very healthy tourist industry until fishing died. We should get a grant and restore our forests and rivers, not kill them.
DeFazio camp worried about Jim Feldkamp?
From Evelyn Anderson, president, Umpqua Valley Republican Women
RoseburgI listened to Peter DeFazio’s TV commercial with disbelief. He has been in Congress 20 years, but his commercial is typical of his character, not his position.
Jim Feldkamp recently spoke during a Republican Women’s meeting. His speech was positive, upbeat and without one unkind word about DeFazio. He spoke of his vision for District 4 and how we can work together to make it better.
He has lots of good ideas, energy and enthusiasm -- just what is needed.
Regarding his FEC fines, he was honest and forthright. They were levied during the 2004 campaign when the new McCain-Feingold law went into effect. He had never run a campaign, and his staff was new and inexperienced.
He failed to report a segment of a trip he had taken to see his daughter in Boston, drill for the Reserves in Washington, D.C. (all of which he paid for), and on the way back to Oregon, stopped in San Francisco for a campaign event.
That segment was not reported as a campaign expense. The other fine was a misunderstanding about the 48-hour notice filings (new law, new candidate). These complaints were filed by the Democratic Party.
It’s a difficult law to read, an absolute nightmare for challengers, as all the benefits lie with the incumbent. When you think about it, maybe the Defazio camp is a little worried.
We are pleased to support Jim Feldkamp as our candidate from the Fourth District.
Measure 48 called ‘Back to the Future’
From Jason Williams, executive director
Taxpayers Association of Oregon, PortlandIt’s little known, but it happens to be a fact, that Oregon already has a spending limit for state government. If that’s the case, why all the fuss over this fall’s Ballot Measure 48 to limit the growth of state government to inflation plus population?
In the 1970s, Oregon’s Legislature went on a spending binge. During that decade, state spending jumped dramatically as our timber-based economy boomed. In response, voters overwhelmingly approved in 1980 our “2 Percent Kicker” program, and another provision tying state government spending increases to increases in personal income. The two were a perfect match: the Kicker would limit revenue and the spending limit would limit --well, spending.
Unfortunately for the voters, these measures were only statutory -- that is, they were “only” laws. Since passage, the Kicker has been violated by the Legislature several times, and threatened every time it “kicked,” until voters got fed up and put it in the state Constitution a few years ago.
The spending limit suffered an even worse fate. Since its adoption in 1980, legislators have not allowed the spending limit to control one penny of spending. The Legislature has voted to violate the voter-approved spending limit in every Legislative session since 1981. That’s 13 straight times.
Any questions about why Oregonians distrust the government?
So now, after another decade (and a half) of watching the Legislature spend every single penny available -- and then running into a recession without sufficient savings and raiding every trust fund the state had to fund current spending -- voters are ready to say enough is enough and put a reasonable spending limit in the Oregon Constitution.
Ballot Measure 48 is a direct reaction to the Legislature’s profligate ways in the 1990s. Oregon’s economy boomed, and the Legislature spent. The Rainy Day Amendment would allow continued spending growth, but would limit growth to increases in inflation plus Oregon’s population. Any revenues that came in above the limit, which current estimates predict could be $1 billion per year, would be left in the state treasury, earning interest.
The next time there’s a recession this money would be available to spend on needed programs. The Legislature could also spend it in nonrecession times -- provided they first get voter approval. With Measure 48, Oregon will have the Kicker to limit excessive revenue growth, and the Rainy Day Amendment to limit excessive spending growth.
Working hand-in-hand with the Kicker, Measure 48 would give Oregon voters what they asked for from their Legislature a quarter of a century ago and have been denied since: a reasonable growth allowance for state government spending.
Subscribe
to the Illinois Valley News
Click Here
© Copyright 2005-2006 Illinois Valley News, All rights reserved.
