Every time I see or hear the phrase "not paying their fair share" as applied to taxes, I want to ask, "Are you paying your fair share? Based on what?"

Every time I see or hear the phrase "not paying their fair share" as applied to taxes, I want to ask, "Are you paying your fair share? Based on what?"

I finished our 2012 taxes so I know what our legal share is. Being retired, I think it's reasonable, but maybe the "experts" wouldn't agree.

The fairness issue is highly subjective and won't be resolved even with a complete tax code overhaul. This country needs economic stability, but liberals and conservatives can't agree on the means and time frame.

Ultimately, some combination of tax increases and spending cuts (including entitlement reform) will probably be required. If that's what it takes, OK, but fiscal responsibility needs to be a priority. That's not something we've seen much of from either party for several years. It's been more like politics and pandering.

We're in this leaky boat, too. We need to keep reminding ourselves and our legislators that, federal, state or local, the source for government funds is us; only the mailing address changes. So I don't know what "fair share" is, but I know what it is not: the obligations we are passing on to future generations by not facing our own. — Stan Loer, Grants Pass

In reply to Glenn Garvin's March 1 piece that equates opposition to GMOs with opposition to science, consider that GMO crops are not "science" — they are commercial products.

Since 1992 the USDA, in spite of conflicting reports from its own scientists, has managed GMOs with a policy known as "substantial equivalence" which does not require independent science research. It requires only that the producers themselves tell us that they think they are safe.

If you combine substantial equivalence with the fact that they are patented products that require commercial confidentiality, the reality is that scientific studies about GMOs cannot be conducted at all by independent scientists. Some science that is! Open studies and publication are fundamental to the integrity of science.

Good science rests on the fact that conclusions can always be tested by repeating the research. For GMO crops, then, what is claimed to be "scientific" regulation is actually a perversion of science — secretive and (because there is no requirement to publish or even list all studies) possibly highly selective corporate information. What we hear from the biotech industry is nothing but unverifiable marketing propaganda, not science.

Ban GMOs in Jackson County. Vote yes on Measure 15-119! — Brian Comnes, Ashland

Bob Calhoun of Eagle Point on Feb. 28 puts down evolution because it does not live up to his high standard of evidence.

Fine. But what Mr. Calhoun wants us to believe is the Bible creation story, which comes complete with no evidence.

Brilliant "thinking." That's like living with your mother without paying rent. — Craig Callaway, Eagle Point

"Sign of the times" (MT Feb. 15) gives us very disturbing information: It shows that we are rapidly moving in the wrong direction and reflects confused hearts and minds. Beneath this all lies a conscious or unconscious rebellion against a given order, a craving for truth and love looked for in the wrong places, a hurting soul's crying for help.

Tue love can still be found and experienced. There is a heavenly father. (Luke 15:11 - 32). — Ingrid Le Bleu, Medford