fb pixel

Log In

Reset Password


In reference to a recent Mail Tribune article on Mormon moms, the reality today is that promoting large families, as the doctrines of some religions do, is outdated in a world where humans have already placed a great burden on the natural world.

One mom said you have a lot of what you love. Well, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially when the impacts harm others. As we humans consume more and more land area, we continue to push out other species we share this planet with at an ever increasing rate.

Fresh and saltwater fisheries are in an accelerating state of decline, as is tillable soil. Air and water pollution continue to plague the U.S. and pollution is causing fatalities in many countries that are producing goods for our population. Combining an ever expanding population with the fact that land area, water and other nonrenewable natural resources are finite, we are running afoul of our carrying capacity.

We need sustainability in population growth. After all, they're not making any more land. Let's love what we have more, instead of making more to love. — Linda Lenhardt, Talent

Recently two letters favoring the proposed Cherry Creek development were published. One resorted to name calling, and the other was a well-written account of the need for low-income housing — a need no one disputes. Neither letter, however, addressed any facts regarding why the surrounding neighborhoods are opposing the proposal and why the City Council has rejected it.

The dispute has never been over who would be living in the development, only about how many. Some simple facts are that Spring Street and Berkeley Way are not equipped to handle the added traffic the proposed number of tenants would bring, that there are no sidewalks for their children to use to protect them from that traffic when walking to distant schools, and that there is no nearby shopping or public transportation.

The City Council was right when it rejected this project as incompatible with its surroundings. Isn't it about time that the rest of the taxpayers begin to wonder why the Housing Authority is so intent on spending seemingly unlimited amounts of money fighting this decision instead of simply putting it where it would be among like structures in an appropriate area where it would be welcomed? — Pat Parr, Medford

Each of the primary candidates was an outstanding example of GOP values in their own peculiar way, so Republicans gave them all a turn at being frontrunner.

There was The Donald, who wowed them with The Hair and the "birther" lunacy; Michele Bachmann, from another planet that's only 7,000 years old; Herman Cain, who never was a real contender but gave the illusion of diversity; Rick Perry, for those who thought Bush was too cerebral; Ron Paul, a flaming bigot who claims Social Security, Medicare and paper money are unconstitutional; Rick Santorum, who thinks the Founding Fathers blew it when they separated church and state; the ethically challenged Newt, whose morals are slimier than the salamander he's named after; and poor Mitt "Corporations Are People" Romneycare, who couldn't get any respect even after "refudiating" his only notable achievement — providing the model for Obamacare. Jon Huntsman would be formidable, but his admitted belief in evidence-based science made him a nonstarter.

Who knew the far righteous had a sense of humor? They desperately seek what one representative described as their "Great White Hope," and what do they do? Send in the clowns. That should be the theme song at their convention. — Michael Steely, Medford

Kathy Lambie, in her Jan. 19 letter, accuses conservatives of being against "women's rights." Of course that's nonsense. Oh, wait, she uses "women's rights" as a euphemism for abortion.

In her make-believe world, if you're against killing innocent babies in the womb, you're against women's rights. In the real world, if you're against abortion, you're pro-human rights, pro-parental obligation and anti-murder. It may be currently "legal," but no woman should have a right to kill her own children.

Ms. Lambie suggests that "if you are pro-life you should support social services and health care for all ..." Well, she neglects the evidence that conservatives give far more to charities than leftists do. Pro-lifers do support social services and health care for all. Unlike Ms. Lambie, pro-lifers recognize that the term "all" includes innocent human beings in the womb.

I agree with Ms. Lambie that abortion is a personal issue. For the baby on the receiving end of the knife —— his/her own death is quite personal. — Kathleen Watson, Medford