Letters to the Editor for Oct. 15

Mike Kitts

Hood River

Blackburn for Mayor

I have known Paul for 12 years to be a dedicated father, good friend to the young and older generations, and a community leader who left the council and numerous activities for a six-month hiatus in Central America with his family. He is a man of integrity and honor. I trust Paul do the right thing and to get things done. Join me in voting for him for Mayor.

Jane Fetisoff

Hood River

Field fellows?

I see the Parks and Recreation District is seeking land. I believe Little League and others are seeking fields. I hear the School District is seeking artificial surfaces and lighting.

Wouldn’t it be great if these organizations would sit down and work out a plan with the City, County, Port, and any other organization to come up with a plan which would benefit EVRYONE?

Daryn Fogle

Hood River Global warming is here

The cause of global warming lies in the exponential growth of the U.S. and global population and the exponential growth of U.S. and world energy consumption. The huge demands for energy have been met chiefly by burning coal, petroleum and natural gas. This in turn releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere faster than the planet can absorb the gas, producing the greenhouse effect.

The consensus of opinion of thousands of scientists from all disciplines is that the planet is heating up. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change assessment report in the April 4, 2014 issue of Science magazine states eight major climate risks:

As a physicist I believe something is wrong with our beloved planet. If world leaders do not find positive solutions to these problems, then our planet will display its own negative solutions. I applaud all of the people who participated in the climate march on Hood River. The clear messages from the marchers were directed to our leaders.

Dale Glasgow

Underwood

My choice is Blackburn

Who has demonstrated thoughtful leadership? Paul Blackburn. Who has successfully collaborated with local school districts, city, community, and Port officials? Paul Blackburn. Who realizes that our City has limited tax resources and will work tirelessly to place fiscal responsibility as our number one priority?

Paul Blackburn, my choice for Mayor of Hood River.

Jodie S. Holmberg

Hood River

No on 92

I recommend a no vote on Measure 92 requiring GMO labeling.

First, requiring a single state to have different labeling requirements than other states would increase food prices for consumers, according to many independent studies (Cornell University 2014 for one).

Proponents advertise “Other countries that have GMO labeling have not seen an increase in food prices.“ The key word here is “countries.” If they could claim “states,” they certainly would.

Second, virtually all food without GMOs are labeled “GMO Free.“ Case in point, products that have been naturally gluten free for years are now labeled as such. Manufacturers realize this is a marketing benefit.

Proponents of Measure 92 say they want labeling to provide choice between GMO and non-GMO free foods, but they already have this choice simply by purchasing products labeled GMO free if they choose.

Requiring this labeling is not only redundant, but will raise food costs for us all. The Oregonian and The Bend Bulletin do not support this measure. Please vote no on Measure 92.

Jon Laraway

Hood River

No on 92

I urge voters to vote no on Measure 92 (which requires labeling of raw, unpackaged foods produced all or in part with “genetically engineered” food) to be labeled as such, for the following reasons:

The FDA has found that genetically engineered (GE) foods are nutritionally identical to their counterparts and are safe for infants, children and adults.

The measure would provide inaccurate, misleading and unreliable information to Oregon consumers.

It would create huge new costs and complicated red tape for farmers, food companies and grocery stores in Oregon. This would greatly increase costs to the taxpayers and food buyers.

In recent times, modern biotechnology has led to important breakthroughs in medicine and agriculture. It has yielded new vaccines and medical treatments for humans and animals. Also, it has led to the development of food drops that resist pests and diseases, are more drought-tolerant, produce higher yields and are better for the environment.

Over 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies over the past 20 years have shown that GE foods are as safe, if not safer, than their conventional counterparts. They are beneficial to farmers, consumers and the environment.

Vote no on 92.

Donald Rose, MD

Hood River What’s a conservative?

What do conservatives conserve? George Orwell was shot in the neck by a “conservative” sniper. But he survived and introduced the world to double speak. Every time I have posed that question to a prominent political “Conservative” I get the old death stare. Walden does a good one. But that’s all I got when I asked him what he conserves.

Most people who follow this stuff know that the last fiscally conservative Republican administration was Ike’s. That would be the 1950s, in a land where one spouse could pull in enough bacon for both of them to raise a family, buy a new car every so often, take an actual vacation and retire with a secure nest egg. Now those nests are exposed to vulture capitalists who are the bane of pensioners’ existence. There was democracy in the workplace and unions ruled the day for a short bright period of the strongest middle class in our history. We imposed IMPORT tariffs and the wealthy were rich in a rich country and quite happy.

Then the media was monopolized by “conservative” corporations and the big shift to the right began. Now the “conservatives” have moved all of their factories to China and are conserving labor costs, so maybe that’s it. It’s certainly not the environment.

“Conservatives” claim to be for smaller government, but each Republican administration has dramatically increased the size of the military (which is government) and spent us into new levels of oblivion. If you are wondering who to vote for this go around, please consider voting for an independent or the RESPONSIBLE party who are always made to look like tax and spenders because half of the spending they are forced to do is actually cleaning up the mess left from the previous administration. Don’t waste your vote on phony “conservatives;“ they are radical puritans who want to take us into an Orwellian future funded and controlled by the Koch brothers.

That’s not conservative: that’s radical. Happy 30th, anniversary 1984.

Nathan Salter

Hood River

Retain Ostrye

I wholeheartedly support Karen Ostrye for Judge. Karen was an attorney in our law firm for 13 years, during which time she proved herself to be an exceptionally capable attorney. She was also a dedicated community volunteer with the Hood River School Board, CASA and other organizations. Her sharp legal mind, strong work ethic, and the sense of fairness and compassion which she brought to her legal work and volunteer work, will continue to serve her well as Circuit Court Judge with the Seventh Judicial District. Join me in voting for Karen Ostrye.

Jay Sherrerd

Hood River

Farrell for Judge

This week the Voter’s Pamphlet arrived in our mailboxes. I encourage you to read about Tim Farrell, my choice for Judge of the Circuit Court, Position 3. In my opinion, Tim is very well suited for this position.

What the pamphlet doesn’t tell you is that Tim Farrell is a man of strong convictions, integrity and has an empathy for people found in all kinds of situations. You can also check out TimForJudge.net for more information. Please vote!

John Stevens

Hood River

Like tobacco, marijuana harms

“Winston taste good like a cigarette should.” What a lie, but what an attraction to hundreds of people who started smoking cigarettes listening to that TV ad, or continued letting tobacco wreck their health. Fortunately the FCC in the late ‘60s forbid Big Tobacco from advertising on TV and slowly but surely smoking in the U.S. has dropped significantly.

Now we are facing another challenge as Big Marijuana is trying to convince us that it will provide safe marijuana that only people over 21 will use and there will be no increase in car wrecks and other accidents, home life will be happier, people will be able to do their jobs like they used to and children will be safe because no one will give them marijuana or be careless leaving it where young people can get it and use it.

We already have medical marijuana in our state to take care of the people who have persuaded a doctor they need the drug. But allowing recreational marijuana Oregon style is like telling college students that binge drinking won’t hurt anyone.

Also, for those who believe Oregon will get some tax money out of this industry, you need to know that for every dollar our state receives from alcohol tax it spend $9 for rehabilitation. No winners here.

Oregon’s policy has no cap on the amount of THC in the marijuana that would be sold here.

We should vote NO until we see what happens in Colorado and Washington over the next two years or so. For sure, if we pass the measure this year we will not be able roll back the decision.

For more on why you should vote no on 91, go to Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM): learnaboutsam.org/sam.

So, here we are standing on a cliff looking over the edge wondering if it will hurt if we jump. From what I’ve read we would be better off saying NO to Big Marijuana and Tobacco lest we jump to a death we cannot reverse. Please join me in protecting our communities by voting NO on #91.

Tom Yates

Hood River

Coal is a relic

The public — the people that fish from the Columbia, value clean water, and appreciate the Gorge’s scenic beauty — deserve a voice in what’s heating up to be a historic showdown between Big Coal and the State of Oregon. Our conservation groups have teamed up to lend our unique perspective in defending the State’s historic decision to deny Ambre coal dock-building permit at the Port Morrow. Ambre Energy’s plans to export over 8.8 million tons of coal per year ground to halt in August when the Oregon Department of State Lands denied a critical permit. On Oct. 9, Columbia Riverkeeper, Friends of the Gorge, and Sierra Club filed official paperwork to become a party in Ambre’s appeal. The people that use the river and value the National Scenic Area deserve a voice in helping to protect Oregon from Ambre’s short-sighted coal export plans.

Without a coal dock-building permit, Ambre cannot start moving an ounce of coal along the Columbia and through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. But all of that could change if Ambre prevails in its appeal. That’s why we decided invest the time and energy in defending the State of Oregon’s right to say no to dirty coal. Oregonians and Northwest residents have spoken loud and clear: We oppose shipping hazardous coal through Oregon and along the Columbia River. People and community leaders throughout the Gorge weighed-in and stood on the right side of history. Coal is a fossil — a relic of the past. We’re moving forward.

Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky,

Columbia Riverkeeper

Peter Cornelison,

Friends of the Columbia Gorge

Laura Stevens,

Sierra Club