Letters to the Editor for Oct. 30

Open letter to Walden

Mr. Walden: You presume in some way to represent me, a citizen of your district who has voted in 29 congressional elections.

Further, having taken your oath of office you presume to act as a lawmaker of the United States. Not responsible for judging constitutionality and not responsible for executing law. Lawmaker.

And a powerful one at that: As chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, you sit high, right close to the Speaker of the House. With that power comes special responsibility to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” as your oath says; to govern.

Yet we learn, as the Republican-caused government shutdown ended, that you were the only member of the combined delegation of Oregon and Washington to vote to continue the shutdown; such an unusual action that even extremist Republican congressman Doc Hastings voted to end the shutdown. How is that “governing”?

Additionally, as if to rub salt into the anti-government wound, you continue your vandalism on Obamacare. In the Oct. 24 New York Times you say, “‘If the website glitches are just the tip of the iceberg ... It’s only a matter of time before the law sinks and takes with it those Democrats who wrote it, voted for it and are proud of it.” Sounds like psychological projection to me.

Mr. Walden, you are not fulfilling your sacred oath of office; you are not making laws, you are sabotaging them; and you do not represent me in any way, even on issues on which we might accidentally agree. On shutdown those Democrats upon whom you smear blame represent me, but not because I might be a Democrat: I’m not.

(This letter sent throughout Oregon Congressional District 2, to the 12 newspapers that serve the district’s 20 counties.)

David Hupp

Hood River

We are represented

Thank you, Paul Nevin (Long live Tea Party, Oct. 23), for stating the Tea Party’s position. I know they are against taxation, but had no idea they consider themselves unrepresented.

The original concept of “taxation without representation” referred to the British Parliament, elected by citizens of Britain, imposing taxes on residents of the American colonies. However, for over 200 years, we have been electing our own senators and representatives (!), as well as state legislatures and local governing bodies.

Do today’s conservatives feel unrepresented because not all of those politicians share their specific views on the issues? Perhaps they disagree with the stands of the legislators elected in Oregon. If so, there are senators from other states, such as Texas, who have carried their message to Washington. We are all represented in the halls of Congress, even when we disagree with the outcome.

The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress by due process in 2010.

Now one party is refusing to consider a budget that funds that particular law of the land. I had hoped someone from either side would step forward and agree to compromise to avoid a government shutdown, but every issue is now a matter of winning or losing with no room for meaningful debate toward resolution.

I vote for individual candidates, not parties, so I will not vote in the future for anyone who was in Congress when this travesty occurred.

Tom Hart

Hood River

Francis erred

It was never clear to me what exactly it was that Bob Francis did which made him unfit to be the city’s manager until now.

Bob signing off on $419,435.50 of revenue is incredibly unethical, and gives grounding to the stories one hears around here about “good old boys” scratching each other’s backs.

Why couldn’t Ryan’s Juice get a loan through the conventional methods? My guess is because that business has horrible credit, and no lender would be that risky.

Why does the City have to assume this risk with nothing in return? Would you loan someone $419,435.50 without a contract saying what you get in return if they default? I know I wouldn’t.

Further, I’m sure we could find something very beneficial to the community to do with the interest on the loan.

Forrest Rae

Hood River

Unfair focus

I live in Hood River and work at Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles. I picked up today’s (Oct. 26) copy of the newspaper, and feel compelled to express my anger and frustration.

On the front page is the headline “MCMC to pay 2.4m,” referencing the jury’s financial award to plaintiffs by Mid-Columbia Medical Center for the harm caused by Dr. Fred Field. Not only was the ongoing coverage of the trial in The Dalles Chronicle overwhelmingly slanted toward the plaintiffs, but you chose to publish the verdict on the front page of the Hood River News.

I’ve been told the Hood River News will not publish events or stories from The Dalles because it is not relevant to Hood River readers. This includes the wonderful things happening at our regional cancer center (Celilo), which treats patients from both communities, or Mid-Columbia Medical Center and its numerous unique medical services and specialists (even if no other hospital in the Gorge offers that service or specialty).

However, you put THIS story on the front page.

The 900-plus dedicated and compassionate employees of Mid-Columbia Medical Center, the best organization I’ve had the privilege of working for, will not be defined by the reprehensible actions of one twisted individual.

It is an injustice to publish a story like this one, while refusing to publish stories of the extraordinary patient care, unique medical services and contributions our hospital makes to our patients and communities every day. I am furious that we have not been given that opportunity.

Sharla Weber

Hood River

Editor’s note: Hood River News considers news items pertaining to The Dalles to be of interest to readers; articles on Frederick Field’s arrest and prosecution were also printed in the Hood River News.

Insidious GMOs

Our northern neighboring state is grappling with the issue to label genetically modified food. That is, food that contains, or has been derived from, GMOs: genetically modified organisms (like plants) also know as GE foods, genetically engineered.

What’s the big deal? Why are out-of-state folks pumping so much money to defeat this measure?

Indeed, most of processed food we eat already contains modified plants or derivatives from modified plants. Corn, soybeans, canola and now sugar beets have been so modified. Any food item containing ingredients derived from corn, soybeans, canola or sugar beets would need to be labeled; ought to be labeled.

Here is an example from my cupboard: I bought a cheap jar of instant coffee. It tasted odd. A check of the ingredient statement revealed that the instant coffee contained Maltodextrin. Maltodextrin is a corn sugar which, in all likelihood, came from genetically modified corn. My instant coffee contains GMOs.

But that isn’t quite correct. Genetic material is located in the protein fraction of each plant cell. Our food is basically fat, carbohydrates and protein. Sugar is a carbohydrate, not protein, so technically, the case could be made that the Maltodextrin in my instant coffee is not the corn’s genetic material and so not modified. But to me it is GMO coffee. The damage to the environment has been done.

Why are opponents pumping so much money into the campaign? I am reminded of the quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet when Queen Gertrude exclaims, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Ann Lameka

Mount Hood

Log in to comment