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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:

Carlton Yee and Paul Adams say that I have a bias and they're correct. It's high quality aquatic habitat.

Yee's pro-logging bias is well known. Adams' bias was revealed at the hearing and the "Fire In Oregon's Forests" Conference in October 2002. He's OSU's watershed specialist but didn't discuss at either forum the serious threat to aquatic habitat of erosion related to roads, logging and salvage.

At the conference Adams sharply criticized a report by his OSU colleague, Dr. Robert Beschta, who wasn't there to respond. The "Beschta Report," coauthored with seven other scientists, presents the environmental risks of salvage logging.

Such attacks on environmental professionals and programs are widespread and there are serious consequences. Fish and water quality scientists at universities and public agencies often feel intimidated because of job insecurity, budgets and potential anti-environmental legislation. Consequently they are reluctant to publicly counter the aggressive arguments of their market resource colleagues.

This, and official events like the Sisters hearing, destroy public dialogue, trust and credibility, and promote "group think" within forest organizations. Defending and promoting the public interest in fish and water defaults to citizen groups and courts. Professionals who felt unable to publicly present their science are then mandated to do so in a legal setting.

Congressman Simpson (R-Idaho) recently held an open field hearing, so Congressman Walden's invited-speakers-only format was a choice, not a requirement. And I'm sure Adams didn't need to be told what to say.

My Nugget "Opinion" statement on soil surface erosion rates from the road-prism compared to undisturbed soil is correct.

My experience summary was in the article because The Nugget asked for it. I worked as staff and consultant for 36 years to federal, state and local agencies including EPA and DEQ, and private companies like Weyerhaeuser. My publications were usually attributed to clients, consulting firms or employers. I'm legally bound to present information and my qualifications honestly.

Tom Davis, P.E.

* * *

To the Editor:

My thanks to the friends who alerted me on Sunday morning to The Bulletin's mistake of listing my name in an article about ex-sheriff's deputies. (Editor's note: Mr. Eisenbeis is referring to the story "Ex-deputies' records released," which appeared in The Bulletin's Sunday edition, September 5).

Thankfully, The Bulletin mitigated the gaffe by printing a correction and apology the next day.

In 1998, I was asked to use my marine law enforcement background to help build up the sheriff's marine patrol program. I agreed and came out of retirement to work the full 1998 season. At the end of that year, the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office marine patrol was named the best seasonal program in the State of Oregon, and I considered my job done.

Nevertheless, I continued to help out on a part-time basis for the next two years but gradually eased myself out of the program even though I was invited to stay.

Since that time, I have maintained an active and continuing role with the Sheriff's Office as a member of the Sheriff's Advisory Council, representing citizens of the Sisters area.

The Bulletin's attempt to set the record straight is appreciated, and I thank the members of the community who immediately recognized the error.

Craig Eisenbeis

* * *

To the Editor:

Re: Eric Dolson's editorial: according to prior census reports, the poverty level has not changed much in the last 36 years. It was 12.6 percent in 1968 and now it's 12.5 percent.

While we must (and do) care for society's weakest members, those in poverty seldom remain there for long. Many are young, or immigrants, or others who quickly move up to better lifestyles. Further, there are numerous welfare programs available to the poor, including free health care.

It is a simplistic to blame President Bush for the fact that 15 percent of the population has no health care insurance. While insurance is expensive, it is due in large part to better, but more complex and therefore more costly treatments now available, and to the loss of private, employment-based insurance. And let's not forget the high cost of medical malpractice suits. Even so, 85 percent of us DO have insurance, and how many of the 15 percent would buy insurance even if it were more affordable?

Finally, as a military man, I adamantly defend the right of the Swiftboat Veterans to express their perception of events in Vietnam. Is no one allowed to say to Sen. Kerry, "That's not the way I remember it"? Kerry could dismiss their contentions immediately by releasing his records and diaries. Or is there something he can't let us know?

Mr. Dolson, do you write your opinion pieces to elicit a response, or do you really think in such a narrowly focused manner? It's really polarizing to talk in "bumper stickers."

Dazzle us with your brilliance. Don't cherry pick arguments that support your view without acknowledging the whole truth.

If your rhetoric is correct, you will win us over to your viewpoint based on a legitimate debate of the facts.

John Gailey

* * *

To the Editor:

Thanks for your editorial in Wednesday's paper (September 1). Oregon needs a voice in the wilderness to speak up and say the truth about what this man is doing.

I think you should be congratulated for trying to present a balanced account even though things are definitely out of balance. The letter by Wm. Benson shows how far the truth can be stretched. His justification of Bush's policy in Iraq is laughable except it's not funny.

He spent most of his time justifying the WMD again by quoting people who were misled by the the Bush Propaganda Machine.

He's also fearful of foreign governments making "billions" from Iraq.

I guess it's okay if Cheney and his cronies do it though.

He takes you to task for criticizing Bush's energy policies, etc., but can't support his own argument except to say (yours) are "wild and outlandish."

Just because the gentleman has an M.D. after his name doesn't make him an expert on politcal issues. I'm no expert either, but I don't consider myself stupid enough to buy into Bush's arrogant policies regarding foreign relations, or his spending programs that are going to create massive budget deficits for future generations, or his drug program which is going to put billions in the pockets of the already rich at the expense of the poor.

Wake up America, this man is ruining our country.

Dan Ramberg

Retired Teacher, Camp Sherman

* * *

To the Editor:

Your editorial of September 1 ("Send Bush back to Texas, Eric Dolson, page 2) is way over the top and beyond belief.

You are like a walking encyclopedia with all kinds of facts and figures that are only meaningful if you want to believe them. Your editorial tells me that you don't have a clue about what this country and the world for that matter are all about.

Your slam and diatribe against President Bush is filled with irrational hate and bitterness plus vengeance. I'm sure you wouldn't give George Bush credit if he walked on water.

What I'm wondering about is what you will do when he is re-elected? It looks like your man may be on the verge of losing it and instead of sending Bush back to Texas we may send Kerry back to Boston. If this happens you may need therapy. You should lighten up and have a life.

James Walz

* * *

To the Editor:

Thc publisher's editorial "Send Bush back to Texas" (The Nugget, September 1, page 2) was very interesting and informative in the way it crunched the numbers on what is going on in American households today.

The figures are shocking of course. And I would not have believed any of what that editorial said if I hadn't read a few new books lately. I bought eight books all written about the present administration and its impact on the country during the last four years.

If there are any readers out there who question any of the information Mr. Dolson included in his editorial, may I refer you to the following reading materials: "Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Louis Dubose, two journalists who went to school with Bush, Jr. -- extensive documentation of sources included. Also, "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean, formerly of the Nixon administration -- extensive footnotes and documentation of sources.

The first rule of journalism is "check your sources" and I can tell from Mr . Dolson's writing that he has done a lot of research and it is appreciated by this reader.

Susan Lester

* * *

To the Editor:

Three years ago in August, the President received a memo which said, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S..." The world would have been better off if the President had responded to this imminent threat.

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein? The world would have been better off without Matthew Shepherd's murderers, Skinheads, Timothy McVeigh, the "righteous" who shoot doctors and (without) an inhumane Saudi government.

I'm not so sure that mass murder by us in response to these demonic people makes the world a better place.

Blame the CIA, FBI and NSA? They did very well under Clinton in the Millenium threat and many more near-disasters. Cooperative effort worked in the '90s, so why did it suddenly fail under Bush?

Imperialism was practiced by Napoleon, the British, the Germans and now is our manifesto. Bush warned us in his acceptance speech, for the first time, that this manifesto of hammering a different form of government into the rest of the world is his administration's plan.

Don't believe me; go to the library and read "The Pentagon's New Map of the World," (Esquire, March, 2003). It was written by a member of the Bush regime, not by some (heaven forbid) Liberal.

We'll be at war for the next 15 years. You think there won't be a military draft? Where will we get soldiers to dash into more foreign wars without a plan for stability?

It's not just about the financial price of war; it's about American lives and the lives of people across the map. Hitler, Napoleon and the British Empire all thought they had a good idea and acted with the best intentions (in their minds). Do we really want to participate in this kind of conquering history?

Please think before you vote.

Bonnie Malone

* * *

To the Editor:

The secrecy of the Bush Administration is bothersome, to say the least; it reminds me of the sneaky ways of the Russian Empire and the days of Stalin.

One of the secrets the Bush Empire apparently doesn't want America to know is the real cost of the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq. I call it that because there seems to be no creditable reason for our troops to be there. We didn't find any WMD, and those so-called terrorist cells did not materialize. It appears Americans are dying because Iraqis seem to delight in fighting among themselves.

There are only two reasons, in my opinion, that over one thousand (and counting) American warriors have lost their lives in Iraq: 1) Saddam Hussein, the despot and his nutty sons have been put out of business; 2) The big shot contractor friends of the Bush Bunch have been into business.

For those of you not aware, the U.S. military is not the only U.S. organization that is functioning in Iraq. A large U.S. contractor called KBR (Kellog, Brown, and Root), a daughter company of Halliburton (once run by VP Dick Cheney), is operating on every U.S. base in Iraq.

Not only are these contractors costing America billions of dollars in taxpayers' money (taxpayers are, in case you may have forgotten, you, me and our grandchildren's grandchildren) but they have American troops guarding them -- and we're paying the bill. As of now, the 3rd Platoon of the 283rd TC is currently riding shotgun on these missions, but they have been alerted that soon the entire unit will be involved.

That's not in the evening news, unless I missed it. I have a hunch the Bush Bunch doesn't want us to know that their contractors may be stealing us blind and on top of that putting more American Service personnel in harm's way so they (the contractors) don't have to pay out of their own pockets for armed guards. I think there's a conflict of interest here -- at least.

Four more years of Presidents Bush & Cheney and this will be The United States of Business Empires. You want that? I do not!

Jim Anderson, Naturalist

* * *

To the Editor:

I feel it is important to address a few election year issues.

First the "flip-flop" card that is routinely played on politicians of all stripe. We should all have learned in high school that amendments are tacked onto a bill as it goes through the legislative process. It is easy to imagine that a senator can vote against a bill whose principle he or she supports because an amendment has been added that they absolutely can't support.

Second, I have to point out an interesting trend. When a "liberal" issue affects conservatives personally, they tend to get pretty liberal fast.

Dick Cheney is pro gay rights (including marriage), his daughter is gay and he feels she should have the same freedoms all Americans enjoy. Ronald Reagan suffered with Alzheimer's; Nancy is now pro stem cell research. James Brady was shot in an assassination attempt, he is now a dedicated gun control advocate.

This trend could eventually work in our favor, if certain elected officials lost their health insurance, their jobs, or their pensions they might recognize the need for a national health plan, or get serious about Social Security.

I am not only discouraged by George Bush's presidency, I am for John Kerry. He is a dedicated patriot that has devoted his entire adult life to public service.

He is a statesman and an avid and well-read student of history. He will take away the tax-breaks for those who are benefitting the most from our great country and if you call that raising taxes it is okay by me. Paying taxes in a country like ours is a privilege. If I could get health, education, and lend a helping hand to the international community less fortunate than ourselves, paying my fair share would make me proud.

We don't have a lot of time left to thumb our noses at the entire global community. Europeans that remember our boys storming the beaches of Normandy are getting old. Soon it will all just be in the history books.

Please vote for John Kerry.

Susanne Redfield

* * *

To the Editor:

The reason that no WMD have been found in Iraq (so far) is because there aren't any.

Our government should know. The U.S. and our allies sold them to Saddam; we have the receipts. We knew what the U.N. destroyed after the 1991 war.

U.N. inspectors couldn't find any in 2002 and the beginning of 2003, in the leadup to our illegal invasion, even though the U.S. intelligence agencies were telling them where to look. The U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars looking for them after the invasion. Dr. David Kay, no liberal he, has emphatically stated that there are no WMD left in Iraq, we just thought there were based on faulty intelligence.

There were plenty of intelligence experts in the U.S. and Britain who warned the administrations that there weren't any, before the invasion.

As the administration liked to tell the losers after the election "Get over it." We didn't find any, because there aren't any and we knew it before the war.

Mr. Benson ("Iraq was a threat," William L. Benson, The Nugget, September 1, page 2) indicates the "...the most important justification for the war: that Saddam had violated more that a dozen U.N. resolutions and that the U.N. was unwilling or unable to enforce its own sanctions."

Where is it written in the U.N. charter or the U.S. Constitution that the United States has the legal right to unilaterally enforce U.N. resolutions? By Mr. Benson's logic the U.S. will now have to invade Israel, an aggressive, belligerent Middle East country with a confirmed secret WMD program that has flaunted and ignored all U.N. Security Council resolutions against it for more than 50 years.

In his next breath Mr. Benson further belittles the U.N. over an investigation into the "...theft of billions from the Iraqi people to line the pockets of the French, Russian and German businesses and politicians as well as some U.N. leaders. Such 'allies' are better considered enemies."

Where is his outrage at the billions that are missing from that same program after it was taken over by U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)? Neither U.S. auditors nor the U.N. IAMB auditors, as required by U.N. resolution 1483, can account for at least $4 billion at the date the CPA went out of business, and that amount is sure to increase.

Dean Billing

* * *

To the Editor:

I am very much afraid for the first time in my life that my future is being jeopardized if current policies are to continue.

What is becoming apparent is that the Republican party has successfully captured those who are willing to sacrifice their safety and well being for the sake of certain issues.

For example, if one is vehement about owning a machine gun then there is no alternative to the NRA-sponsored Republican party. On the other hand, if one doesn't care to own a machine gun that person is probably willing to weigh the more important issues such as jobs, the economy and foreign policy.

Another example: If one is pro-life on birth control then no matter if that person is married, single or 80 years old that person is so emotional about the issue that they are probably going to vote for the party that is predominately pro-life.

On the other hand, if a person is pro-choice they would more than likely place the issue in proper perspective. (Remember, it is the pro-lifers who are radical enough to burn abortion clinics.)

The outcome of this most serious and important election is going to more than likely be determined by radical factions such as NRA and Religious Right who will refuse to weigh the issues of deficit spending, foreign policy, joblessness, healthcare and education. These people will make their choice in this election on the right to have machine guns or their insistence on full term pregnancies.

Frightening isn't it?

Doug Wood

* * *

To the Editor:

In the September 1 Nugget, Lance and Monika Piatt warned us of the "importance" of the Defense of Marriage Act. This silly sideshow is about as important as arguing over whether those funny formations on Mars are proof that the planet once had water.

As a happily married, aging, heterosexual male who will vote on this measure I have yet to hear or read any proof that letting homosexuals marry each other is going to "undermine marriage" as its proponents claim. Logic suggests the opposite.

Letting gays marry would mean hundreds of thousands if not millions of new marriages would take place. That would seem like a shot in the arm to a beleaguered institution with a 60 percent nationwide divorce rate.

Marriage will be defined as a "union between a man and a woman." What if a gay man marries a lesbian and they maintain their same sex orientation? They could even have children. Does such a union undermine marriage? What if a straight woman marries a gay man or a lesbian a straight man? How about those couples currently married who batter or otherwise abuse each other? Do those unions undermine the institution of marriage?

This measure is another attempt of modern Puritan bigots to dictate morality.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, allowing homosexuals to marry will actually increase governmental revenue. With the Bush administration feverishly throwing money away in Iraq, and with a $450 billion dollar national debt, our government could sure use the extra cash.

R.T. Tihista

* * *

To the Editor,

I agree with Miss Swarner (Letters to the Editor, The Nugget, August 25) that people drive too fast down all of our streets, especially as they come into town from the west. To help solve that problem, call the Deschutes County Sheriff and complain or tell the city council to speak to the sheriff.

On the other hand, I am frustrated and appalled that she would not consider leaving the car at home. I can cross this town on my bike in four minutes and can walk across it in ten. There is no reason for residents of Sisters to drive across town and contribute to the traffic problem and complain about it.

We can make our community better by not driving and walking or riding a bike. Don't disregard alternative forms of transportation and try and consider your actions of driving before you do it.

Jonathan Meier

* * *

To the Editor:

Sisters already has a couplet. The locals know where it is.

If we signed the westbound Locust/Barclay route and the eastbound Hood Avenue route we could see if the couplet would really improve traffic flow through town.

We could even create a sextuplet by signing Washington and Jefferson avenues east bound and north Larch Street and Pine Street for westbound. For a couple thousand dollars we could see if the "pressure relief" would really help.

Bruce Berryhill

* * *

To the Editor

This letter is in response to Stu and Barb Marshall. There is an underground water system at the schools. The soccer field where my son plays at the high school is lovely and green.

So what if we keep the grass at the old brick building green and beautiful? I take great pride in our not so little town of Sisters and would rather tourists see that first hand. For your information, that old brick building is still being used as a school. There will be students marching up those steps Wednesday morning to attend class. I think they deserve a nice lawn just like every other student.

Denice Cristiano