News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
News and Opinion from Sisters, Oregon
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 Unpublished items are not acknowledged or returned.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:
The ballots have arrived and are filled with an opportunity to make very important decisions. On the back side of your ballot under Sisters School District #6 is Measure 09-30 which reads "Four-Year Local Option Tax For Programs, Maintenance, and Personnel."
Please join us in voting YES so that our excellent schools will continue.
A yes vote will not raise your taxes; it is a continuation of the Local Option which was passed four years ago, which gave us additional funding so that current class sizes could be maintained, so that updated instructional materials and equipment could be purchased, and so that current programs could be preserved.
Even with the additional funding over the past four years, it has been a struggle to maintain the above-listed items, so it is imperative that this measure be passed, or it is certain that changes will need to be made that will greatly impact the quality of our schools.
As parents with three children currently attending Sisters Schools, we have conversations with relatives, friends and online groups who have children in schools all over the country. The stories we hear are that the schools their children were in were either overcrowded, or there was room, but not enough teachers to fill the classrooms, children are in study hall or other unstructured learning environments for too long each day, there are behavior problems or outdated materials.
While reading, writing, and math take precedence over other curriculum, when I share with relatives about our incredible music and art opportunities, about our Starry Nights Concerts and the musicians that visit the schools, that we have a JV Jazz Band, that we have the Artists in Residence Program, they are in awe of the opportunities our children have here.
Let's keep the great thing we have, going. Please VOTE YES on Measure 09-30.
Rand and Marcia Rietmann
* * *
To the Editor:
I have heard some people say, "Why don't we just wait and let the state legislature solve the school funding problem?"
I am currently actively involved in state level advocacy for our K-12 public schools as the Superintendent in Crook County, the past president of our state superintendents' association and the current chair of the superintendents' funding coalition.
From these experiences, I would share with you that there will be no legislative fixes coming soon. The deficits the legislature is facing and the partisan politics do not make this currently feasible. The only solutions for the next few years are what we can accomplish right here in our local community.
The Sisters School District is asking the taxpayers to extend the current local option tax another four years. This will maintain, not raise, our current tax rate above present levels.
Sisters schools have an excellent reputation within the region and state. Community support in many different ways, including the local option levy, creates this distinction.
Novella and I value our home in Sisters due to the positive qualities of this community. We have often commented that we wish our children would have had the opportunity to attend Sisters schools.
I urge you to maintain the high quality of our local schools and the quality of our community for the sake of our children's future by voting "yes" on measure 9-30.
Steve Swisher
* * *
To the Editor:
The past weeks' reading support and dispute letters regarding McDonald's has kept me quite amused. This afternoon however, my husband received a phone call from a Sisters resident asking if we will be attending a town meeting to oppose McDonald's. Um, NO!
I have yet to hear a concrete, logical reason for McDonald's to not come to Sisters. The development group is following guidelines to keep within the Old West, quaint theme of Sisters, right? What exactly is the real issue here?
I have read issue with low income jobs; isn't that what the majority of Sisters retail organizations fall under? I have read issue with corporate businesses and franchises -- well, we have (many).
I have read issues with low income families and the concern these folks will have more of an unhealthy diet. Now that one was hilarious have you seen the giant SUVs that drive through Micky D's? Hardly low income.
Please folks, there are serious issues with the world, our country and even our state -- perhaps all this energy would be better focused elsewhere.
In the meantime, the answer to all the nay-sayers is simple: Don't like McDonalds? Don't eat there. And please, take us off your call list.
Andrea Schleufer
* * *
To the Editor:
While the bulk of presidential political commentary on these pages has understandably focused on President Bush's disastrous war of choice in Iraq, this certainly is not Mr. Bush's only vulnerability.
During his six years of service as governor Texas ranked 49th in environmental spending and had the worst pollution record in the country, with the most chemical spills, most Clean Water Act violations, and the largest volume of hazardous waste... just for starters.
While approximately 3/4 of Americans believe strongly that the natural world deserves our careful stewardship, an idea that scripture certainly supports, our born-again president and his administration have systematically set out to eliminate environmental safeguards wherever they can.
The Bush pattern of appointing lobbyists and industry insiders to manage the agencies that regulate them was blatantly evident in his appointment of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior, a woman who has championed corporate welfare and opposed environmental protections for decades... and she has surrounded herself with her own kind.
These are the people who brought us the largest recorded fish kill in the history of the American West, right here in Oregon and shelved the 10-year Federal Salmon Recovery Plan.
This is the administration that has systematically turned its back on the most serious collective problem the world has ever faced, global warming.
When will the "pro-life" agenda extend to other species and to the fragile living systems upon which we all fundamentally depend? Love America the Beautiful? Vote for Kerry.
John Rahm
* * *
To the Editor:
We have before us diametrically opposite choices for President, the right or the left.
William Safire of the New York Times Washington Bureau recently wrote, "We are way past partisan politics, in many ways a nation not merely divided but at war with itself."
A harsh statement, though true on many levels.
The United States is at war with a worldwide militant Islamic insurgency. Terrorism is only one component of our enemy's tactics and strategy. If we don't meet our enemy head-on they will see only weakness and become more aggressive towards us.
John Kerry has stated he will conduct a more sensitive war on terror, that he wants to return to the way it was and reduce al Qaeda to a mere nuisance. Mr. Kerry is naive and dangerous. He seems to live in a "Pollyanna" where he does not even acknowledge militant Islam.
The words of Abraham Lincoln, 1862, are relevant today: "The people have not yet made up their minds that we are at war. The people have not buckled down to the determination to fight this war through; they think there is a royal road to peace. We are in a war that must be fought out with conviction."
Steve Coltin
* * *
To the Editor:
Our John Kerry yard sign has been stolen for the third time now. There are Bush signs on the street that are still there.
Does President Bush inspire criminality? Do the laws of this nation not apply to him and his supporters, just like the Geneva conventions don't seem to apply? Is this what we want for Sisters or the country?
Steve Bryan
* * *
To the Editor:
The gay activist community has four major reasons to vote no on Measure 36.
Let's look at each one:
Oregon state law currently says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
M-36 simply puts existing state law into the constitution where only we the people can change it.
It does not take away any rights or privileges from anyone.
This is completely false.
You do not have to be married in order to pass your estate onto another person.
Through a will, you can leave your estate to anyone you choose.
Again, this claim is false.
You can sign a medical directive to give the power of medical decisions to anyone you choose.
Being married is not required.
If Oregonians want to allow health coverage for same sex couples, then we should enact a law that requires it.
Forcing people to marry to gain health insurance is poor public policy.
The gay activist community wants to create a "Massachusetts West" where gay marriage will be legal as it is there.
What does all this mean for the residents of Sisters? Activist judges (like those in Massachusetts) and extremist politicians (like those in Multnomah County) want to make gay marriage the law in Oregon -- without you and me ever voting on it.
Once they do that, the ACLU will sue the Oregon Department of Education on behalf of some "disadvantaged" gay seventh grader. Since the state will have officially recognized gay sex by putting its stamp of approval on gay marriage, the ACLU will win that lawsuit.
The result will be that Sisters Middle School will be forced to include gay and lesbian sex education when they teach Sex Ed to our 12 and 13 year olds.
Please think it through and then vote yes on Measure 36.
Carey Tosello
* * *
To the Editor:
Marriage is under public scrutiny these days. Measure 36 is Oregon's indicator that this is so. On the face of it, an average voter may be inclined to vote "yes" on defining marriage as "one man: one woman." Those who are ought to look more closely at what a "yes" vote actually means and consider opposing it for the following reasons:
The human desire to mate, form families, and contribute to the community is an undeniable fact of our humanity. Most of us would not want to deny anyone the right to form strong families in pursuit of meaning and happiness, and yet this is what the state and national effort to restrict the definition of marriage does.
Gay and lesbian couples are not asking for anyone's permission to pursue their humanity. They are forming families because, after all, that is what humans do. Same-sex couples are, however, without the protection of the law that straight couples take as given.
In our worst moments, as in illness, disability, divorce or death, we need the protection of the law the most. Imagine being a bereaved spouse, but denied your partner's assets, or worse, denied custody of the children you have raised together. Imagine being unable to make emergent medical decisions on your partner's behalf.
Unless our aim is to deepen our neighbor's suffering in tragedy, we should grant these rights to any two people willing to commit to the endeavor of marriage. Maintaining intact, healthy families is in everyone's best interest. When assets are lost and children overly grieved, there are financial consequences that result to society. Are supporters of M36 willing to pick up the pieces?
Those who take issue with same-sex marriage should be permitted their bias, but not permitted to close the constitutional door in the face of couples who need equal rights to strengthen their own families. The humane choice on M36 is "no."
Dawn Mead
* * *
To the Editor:
Oregonians did not go looking for a fight in regards to the definition of marriage.
This was forced upon us when the government "stepped into the marriage business." Earlier this year, four Multnomah County Commissioners and Basic Rights (a Political Activist Group) issued same sex marriage licenses in defiance of Oregon State law.
This attempt to change the entire system of marriage was done without the ability for the general public to vote on this issue. Thankfully Oregonians were given the opportunity to gather 244,000 signatures (more than any other ballot initiative in our state's history); 12 other states will have similar ballot measures.
For thousands of years of human history, society defined marriage as one man/one woman. In May, four Massachusetts judges rewrote the definition of marriage. Consequently, the terms Husband/Wife or Man/Woman have been replaced with "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.
Will similar terms replace Mother/Father on birth certificates and adoption records? The state of Utah is attempting to legalize polygamy... what will be next in line?
State standards of curriculum would also be affected if marriage is redefined from its current definition of one man and one woman. Consider this impact on children at all grade levels, text books and teachers.
The Constitution of Oregon will change and the definition of marriage will be clarified. Will you allow a lobbying group to manage these legal issues pertaining to marriage, family and eventually even education in regards to the definition of marriage?
Can a lifestyle choice honestly be compared with civil rights? The issue here is truth, character and the integrity of marriage... what it means to children, a society and a nation.
Lance and Monika Piatt
* * *
To the Editor:
The case of the young South Carolina Reserve troops who refused the refueling mission in Iraq deserves thoughtful consideration.
They are like canaries in the mine, warning us of a much larger situation of inadequate armor protection, one that had better receive immediate attention and remedy or we're headed for lots more breakdowns in military discipline, not to mention lots more needless casualties.
It's not the first report about lack of armor protection, especially from reservists and National Guard troops.
Let's hope these young soldiers are not being scapegoated for the errors of their superiors. If that helicopter fuel was indeed contaminated, then they are heroes who deserve decoration. If they are highlighting an armor deficiency that's threatening to kill lots more of our troops, then they are serving their country well.
Were these, in fact, legal orders? If they were orders to deliver dangerous, contaminated fuel and to run a suicide mission without adequate protection, then I say they were illegal orders, and responsibility rests with those who issued them.
Bill Stevens
* * *
To the Editor:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" -- Remarks by the President on Iraq, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002 (still on White House website).
"And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie."
"Why We Know Iraq is Lying," -- a column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice, originally appeared in the New York Times on January 23, 2003 (still on White House website).
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003.
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." -- Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003.
Pretty ironic isn't it? It appears that Saddam Hussein didn't file "... a false declaration to the United Nations."
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait (with the United States' blessing), a UN coalition booted him out, restored the despotic Kuwaiti Royal Family to power (no democracy necessary there), and forced Iraq to pay reparations to Kuwait. I wonder when a UN coalition will boot the U.S. out of Iraq, restore the despot Saddam Hussein to power, and force the U.S. to pay reparations to Iraq?
The most amazing result of this debacle is that Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz still have their jobs. Why would anyone consider President Bush a competent leader when he doesn't require any accountability whatsoever from his staff ... unless of course he was part of a conspiracy to start an illegal war, in which case he should be impeached, not just voted out of office for incompetence.
Dean Billing
* * *
To the Editor:
I encourage voters to vote "no" on Measures 35 and 38.
Re: 35, malpractice insurance rates in communities which have passed similar measures have not been significantly reduced because of the "protection" this measure gives insurance companies. The average reduction has been around one-half on one percent, and, at the best, about 2 percent. Big deal. Most of Oregon's highly respected physicians, including many at OHSU, are opposed passage of Measure 35 because of this failure to reduce malpractice premiums.
Health care in this country costs about 25 percent more than that of the next most expensive (health care) nation, with about half the public satisfaction rating. Research has demonstrated that our high cost of health care is not about the cost of care, but about the cost of health care premiums dictated by the private insurance industry.
Why should any of us grant them unrestrained, unregulated premiums and then protect them with a cap on potential claims of negligence by doctors? If we're going to cap something, maybe we should cap insurance rates. At least, let's hear them justify their rate system.
Capping legal settlements in malpractice claims is not the answer to reducing doctors' expenses nor improving the judicial system. If you vote yes on 35, you protect the insurance industry from what? From you.
On Measure 38, this is an attempt for private insurance industry to control workers' compensation. SAIF Corporation needs revamping, but it has functioned quite well since 1914.
From this practitioner's perspective, it is the insurance which best cares for the injured worker.
SAIF may sometimes be a headache, but it is far less a headache than its private competition.
No company is bound to subscribe to SAIF. Workers' comp. insurance is already open to any private insurance bid. Abolishing this public service is to no worker's or employer's advantage.
Vote no on 35 and 38.
Dr. Bonnie Malone, DC
* * *
To the Editor
When you first look at Ballot Measure 37, you see a title that sounds fair: "Governments must pay owners, or forgo enforcement, when certain land use restrictions reduce property value."
Of course we all want fairness! But if you take a closer look at Measure 37, you soon realize that it is not in the public interest, that it leads to non-enforcement of land use laws and that it is extremely costly.
This measure will force governments to choose whether to pay landowners to comply with current regulations that protect our neighborhoods, wildlife, open spaces and farmlands or to let landowners violate the regulations. The League of Women Voters points out that either way, taxpayers lose.
If governments choose not to enforce Oregon's land use laws which have been a model across the country for 30 years, the effects could range from permitting your neighbor to open a noisy business in the middle of your residentially-zoned neighborhood to permitting urban sprawl to destroy our state's valuable farmlands.
In addition to lowered property values, Oregon's natural beauty could be threatened as unlimited development spread over the landscape.
Finally, can we afford a law that would require the state and our counties and towns to spend an estimated $344 million in administrative costs, even before a single ruling was enforced?
There is no funding in this measure to cover these costs, which would then have to come out of general funds that are already barely covering the needs of our schools, courts and human services.
Since this is before a single claim was paid, we cannot over-exaggerate the impact of the potential claims under this measure; the sky's the limit!
The way to protect your pocketbook and our beautiful state is to Vote NO on Measure 37.
Sincerely yours,
Marie Gibson
President, League of Women Voters of Deschutes County
Reader Comments(0)