fb pixel

Log In


Reset Password

Letters to the editor

Who's greedy?

Reference Mark Freeman's Saturday, April 26 front-page article headlined Anglers object to license increase ().

It says: Some sport-anglers say the governor is greedy for wanting to gut taxpayers' contribution to Oregon fish hatcheries as a way to fund social programs while raising angling fees to make up the difference.

Well, obviously the anglers would rather have fish to catch (hatchery fish) even if the wild fish habitat is so degraded that there are no other fish except hatchery fish. Apparently, their motto really is: Let's have hatchery fish, no matter what! And to hell with wild fish habitat, and the social programs!

I'll bet those anglers who object to the fee increase also voted against the temporary tax increase last Jan. 28.

And who's greedy? 'Fred Fleetwood, Trail

Leftward tilt

Once again the Mail Tribune demonstrates it leftward tilt by treating readers to the irrational editorial from the Washington Post. (No wonder that Washington, D.C. has the strictest gun laws and the highest per-capita crime rate in the U.S.)

The editorial poses the question But should a gun dealer who sells 50 handguns to the same person be immune from a negligence claim when that person turns around and sells one of those guns to a criminal who kills someone? The answer is Yes.

If the buyer is a convicted criminal (felon) the prepurchase instant check requirement will reveal this fact to the seller and no sale will occur. If the instant check does not indicate that the buyer is a criminal the sale is legal and the seller has no means to predict the future.

The seller has complied with the law and is in no way responsible for the use of the guns. No negligence has occurred in this transaction.

If an arsonist uses a cigarette lighter to start a catastrophic fire should the cigarette lighter manufacturer be liable?

How about presenting a counter editorial from the NRA? ' C. Wiesenfarth, Eagle Point

Does God take sides?

The article about soldiers finding faith in the desert in the April 4 issue is an example of how this country was propagandized into supporting this war. The claim is that God is on our side.

A chaplain is quoted, All across the desert God had his hand on us as we seek to do justice and righteousness. Almost all of the Iraqi casualties were civilians, many of them women and children. Does God consider their lives less valuable than those of the invaders killing them?

Has the chaplain never read about the injunctions in the New Testament to love one's enemies and to rise above the eye-for-an-eye philosophy? With a couple of honorable exceptions, why has the clergy been so silent about our country waging a war of aggression?

The belt buckles of German soldiers in World War II were inscribed, God with Us. If so, how could they lose both world wars? Does God really take sides? ' Mary Ann Jones, Ashland

We don't need Wal-Mart

In response to Jeannie Gladson's letter on the question of needing another Rogue Valley Wal-Mart, my answer is absolutely not! Wal-Mart is a huge corporation that has acted against the Americans with Disabilities Act, ignored harassment and discrimination issues, put profits before a living wage and benefits for employees, and is a large importer of Chinese-made products where labor is cheap and working conditions are deplorable.

Wal-Mart takes revenue out of the hands of local small business. If you think shopping at Wal-Mart helps our local economy, think again.

While you may be saving a few pennies on products, you are losing on the opportunity to contribute to the economic health of Southern Oregon. The Rogue Valley needs another Wal-Mart like it needs another fast-food restaurant, car lot or drive-through coffee stand! ' Gen Putnam, Medford