Letters, Dec. 3
Writer ignores damage
Regarding Gary Jackson’s opinion expressed in his letter of Sunday, Nov. 25. He may have missed the “factual information” in the recent report from NOAA (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/) produced by “A team of more than 300 federal and non-federal experts — including individuals from federal, state, and local governments, tribes and Indigenous communities, national laboratories, universities and the private sector.” This massive peer-reviewed report will help even the most determined naysayer to see reality.
But if the knife blade penetrates one half inch into the flesh, pushing it in only another half inch won’t do that much more damage — will it?
Gary Jackson, along with the Koch brothers, Pembina and others, has ignored the damage done by the burning of fossil fuels such as natural gas. Each project like this one harms our future: our children and grandchildren.
Sanctuary for wildlife
Thank you, G.A. Bradshaw of Jacksonville, for your letter “Sanctuary for wildlife.”
Perhaps we must ask ourselves why we don’t live in a big city where wildlife isn’t so prevalent. I think the answer might be that we enjoy living with trees and animals around us. We’re nature lovers which is cool. OK, so let’s give these animals a break as we are encroaching on their territory with our big easy-living homes spotted around their natural hillside home grounds.
After all, we are the greatest predators and polluters the world has ever known. The farm animals we raise for our own consumption compromise the environment with feces, gases and water consumption and poisoning. We let that happen because it’s for our convenience and human appetites.
Perhaps we can show a little kindness to all the creatures of our earth who need to live and eat and have just as much right as do we. Can’t we stop being kings of the world for the sake of an exciting multifaceted world for our children?
I’m not a gun owner and I don’t begrudge any gun owners their Second Amendment rights when it comes to self-defense, sport or hunting; however, I can’t understand the NRA’s recent provocative tweet over “the American College of Physicians’ call late last month for tighter gun control laws” (“Doctors, NRA clash over gun deaths, Lisa Marie Pane of The Associated Press, Mail Tribune, Nov. 22).
This “call” was in response to the numerous traumatic events that medical personnel have experienced as a result of the many shootings that continue to involve military-grade weaponry whose bullets almost completely obliterate the internal organs of its victims. And while I acknowledge that there is a minority of citizens who would prefer a complete gun ban, the NRA still chooses to classify this minority as a majority in order to justify its continual resistance to any common-sense gun policy proposals.
Unless one is a current armed forces member engaged in combat, there should be no reason whatsoever to possess weapons of mass casualty in civilian life. If the NRA could devote some time assisting ER staff after a mass shooting, it might realize that its dogmatic stance is misguided, if not irrational.
Kurt Howard Bernhardt