Letters, letters, letters

The Nugget welcomes contributions from its readers, which must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters to the Editor is an open forum for the community and contains unsolicited opinions not necessarily shared by the Editor. The Nugget reserves the right to edit, omit, respond or ask for a response to letters submitted to the Editor. Letters should be no longer than 300 words. Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned. The deadline for all letters is noon Monday.

To the Editor:

An October 2003 Pentagon report on global warming concludes, "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," because of "food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production," and "decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions."

With their focus on national security, the Pentagon recommends (you guessed it) more studies and to "address and prepare for inevitable climate driven events such as massive migration, disease, and epidemics, and food and water supply shortages." And "explore geo-engineering options that control the climate."

They explain, "Today it is easier to warm than to cool the climate, so it might be possible to add various gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, to the atmosphere to offset the effects of cooling."

We don't have time for this. A major study in Nature magazine (January 2004) shows that we have already lost one of 10 plant and animal species with the carbon buildup in the atmosphere now. And if we do nothing over the next 50 years we are expected to drive 15 to 37 percent of animals and plants into extinction!

Our own Nugget Newspaper ran an article titled "Climate change spells trouble for the Northwest." (February 2004) The story predicts a 59 percent decline in snowpack by 2050 in the Cascades. In addition, the article projects that the summer drought season will lengthen by about a month to six weeks!

It's not too late to do something, but we are running out of time. Please consider the consequences of voting for this administration this election year. If the Bush administration stays in office four more years it will be too late. We won't be talking about gay marriages. We'll be talking about water -- who gets it and who doesn't. We'll be talking about how we can keep starving people from our shores.

Terry Weygandt

* * *

To the Editor:

Recently expressed opinions pit Liberals versus Conservatives.

The labels fit in reference to the funding of too many social programs, but for much of our partisan zeal the terms are a contradiction.

For example: Spending without taxation is very liberal. Making citizens out of illegals is a liberal policy. Reducing pollution controls? Liberal.

Soft on environmental restrictions? Very liberal. (After all, conservation has the same root word as Conservative.)

Unrestrictive gun laws? Liberal.

Pro-life? Conservative. (Hey, the Conservatives are conservative once in awhile.)

Republican Senator Gordon Smith recently realized the tragic suicide of his son. Senator Smith states that we need funding to support people who are depressed. Socialism? Yes.

I heard admired Republican John McCain state that he would never consider running as Vice President on John Kerry's ticket because he was pro-life.

It's tragic in this country when we put incorrect labels like Liberal and Conservative on each other but what is more tragic is that we let single emotionally-charged issues define ourselves politically as did McCain.

What would be more correct it seems is that instead of Liberals and Conservatives we call ourselves Idealists versus Pragmatists.

For the Idealist everyone in the world should have religious freedom and live in a democratic nation. (At what cost and our responsibility alone?)

All people should have the benefit of social programs such as helping depressed people as suggested by Gordon Smith, (without funding social programs?)

Ideally we need to help industry create jobs (whether the environment suffers or not?) and ideally every pregnancy should realize a birth.

The Pragmatist on the other hand would be more inclined to believe that spending without taxing is irresponsible, that creating an ideal world without diplomacy is arrogant and risky and that disregarding conservation to help industry is destructive.

Also, to let emotional issues such as guns or abortion determine our political loyalty is foolish and to mislabel each other as Liberal or Conservative is unrealistic.

Doug Wood