Letters to the Editor 03/07/2018

To the Editor:

Regarding Mr. Rullman's column "Our predator problem," published in the February 28, issue of The Nugget (page 7):

While I agree with most of what Mr. Rullman says, I would argue the weapons are also part of the problem. These weapons are prevalent in our culture as an accepted form of entertainment to be used by or under the supervision of a responsible adult. That limitation works just about like the legal age limit for drinking and smoking as well as the total prohibition of recreational drugs. In other words some children will see the possession of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle as a right of passage to adulthood and they will get their hands on them. Add to that the media training ground and a psychosis brought on by abuse or mental illness and we know the rest. 

Semi-automatic weapons are readily available, convenient and effective mass killing devices. Semi-automatic weapons are not the best choice in a home defense scenario. They are not necessary for hunting, nor are they very sporting. What they are is fun to shoot. They are a toy. So are we really going to insist that it is more important to keep playing with these toys than it is to take them out of the hands of an unbalanced person?

I agree that legislation won't work. But we can affect the sea change in our culture necessary to address this problem. We have made great progress against drunk driving and smoking. We realized that the pleasure derived from these actions was not worth the cost.

We are facing a daunting issue. We won't solve it by screaming, preaching with moral indignation or digging our heels in and refusing to face the facts. It is going to require civil conversations between responsible people with differing points of view who realize that we must come together to solve a terrible problem. Let us begin.

Al James

s s s

To the Editor:

I was just reading an article in another newspaper about the City of Sisters nearing an agreement about a low-cost housing project in the Sisters area. As I recall the project happens to be in the approach path to the Sisters Airport.

The City has a letter on file from the State of Oregon's Board of Aeronautics stating that they think this is a BAD idea. So why is the City of Sisters proceeding with this project?

Remember all the complaints regarding the skydiving operations at the airport? Does the City think that the low-cost housing residents will not complain about the airport noise?  Why create another problem?

In my opinion this proposed project does a disservice to the low cost housing residents and also disrespects the airport users. Seems like another unfriendly attitude toward the public.

I am also puzzled as to why one state agency would proceed with a project over the objections of another state agency. Do they not realize they are wasting taxpayer resources.

This proposal seems to reinforce the City's history of making bad decisions.

Dave Marlow

s s s

To the Editor:

Kudos to Craig Rullman, once again.

His column is the first thing I read in The Nugget, every week. He hit the nail squarely on the head with his column this week (The Nugget, February 8, page 7), citing the role of violent video games in shaping the characters of the children who are exposed to them day in and day out.

I went a long time not wanting to believe video games could be such a factor in creating the sociopathic culture that seems to be spreading in our society, but I finally convinced myself that indeed they could. Mr. Rullman summarized my thoughts on the subject better than I could have, at least not without many hours' labor, and he did it eloquently.

We are indeed creating predators among us that previous generations didn't have to cope with, and until we recognize the problem that glorifying anti-social behavior produces we will continue to create these predators while the hand-wringers will continue to wonder where they came from.

Thanks, Mr. Rullman, for such a pertinent column. Keep up the good work!

Jerry Wright

s s s

To the Editor:

A January 8, 2017 article in The Bulletin referred to the roundabout in Sisters as "being viewed as a grand entrance to Central Oregon."

The art in the roundabout in Sisters should reflect Central Oregon's natural environment, not man-made objects like "high tech bikes, skis and outdoor clothing" as alluded to in Joellyn Loehr's February 28 letter to the editor.

The only roundabout choice that reflects Central Oregon's natural beauty and wildlife is "Land of Contrasts." Ms. Loehr referred to "Gateway" as "the expected choice, which is a strong reason to look deeply at who we are and whether the expected solution still works." (I'm not aware of an entry titled "Gateway," so I assume she is referring to the entry titled "Land of Contrasts.") A roundabout at the entrance to Central Oregon should not compel us to "look deeply at who we are"; rather it should mirror Central Oregon's natural beauty.

To borrow Ms. Loehr's word "contemporary": If residents and visitors seek "contemporary" they would probably be more fulfilled visiting or living in Portland or Eugene.

"Mountain Helix," created by an individual from California, and "Butte," created by an individual from Seattle, Washington with the collaboration of Jeff Wester of Sisters' Ponderosa Forge and Ironworks, are works more suited to industrial parks or college campuses. "Land of Contrasts," a work of art created exclusively by a local artist should be the roundabout choice. We have had too many people moving to our area from large urban sprawls, implementing changes to our region that reflect the populous areas they left.

Glenda Leutwyler

s s s

To the Editor:

Rullmam  always has a column I look forward to read. "Our predator problem" is sooo right on. Mr. Cornelius, you're producing a great product; your "Warriors of the Wildlands" is my Christmas gift to friends next year.

Jim Anderson is a treasure.

Leigh Copley