Wednesday, October 19, 2011/lk
Legislators and our money
Reading two articles (Oct. 12 )in the Hood River News and Oregonian reminded me of my pet political peeve. Three legislators are praised for saving funding for a public restroom and funding from the national forest. At the same time, the same legislators are calling for reduced government budgets.
I suggest that, for coming state and federal budgets, each political candidate (singly or in a group) be required to present a budget as detailed as the governor or president. No "efficiency savings" and any revenue decrease/increase amount must come from the appropriate budget agency.
In other words, let them put their mouths where our money is.
Our right to speech, redress
I see by the paper (Our readers write, Oct. 5) that Mr. Alan Winans considers it "Treason" for folks opposed to the senseless wars in the middle east to speak out about their opposition to the use of unmanned aircraft. Personally, I'd much rather a drone was shot down than a manned aircraft. I wish we'd had drones during the Korean fracas ... I packed up too many belongings of aircrew who didn't make it out of North Korean airspace.
As for Mr. Winans' outcry about treasonous talk, I suggest he consult a good dictionary (he'll find one in our library) and look up both "treason" and its cousin "sedition." He (and others with similar views) will then be equipped to read the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights whose First Amendment to our Constitution reads:
Amendment 1 Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I think that makes it pretty plain what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Even allows for peaceable demonstrations such as those recently in Portland and New York City, which I do applaud.
George W. Earley
Horse v. Bike
I recently attended a Parks and Recreation presentation of future potential developments. Great leadership, well organized and good public input. I took issue with the take-over of the long ago established horse trails by the bicycle new comers. The how to pay issue: bonds on property - not license fees on bicycles. These people want "freebies."
Then I visit a long time user of the neighborhood Post Canyon horse trails, and boy did I get an "earfull." Following is my summary dialogue:
Bicycle: "Track - ding ding! Move over horse and stop dropping 'that stuff' on my bicycle trail - I'm coming through."
Horse: "Whoa there, newcomer, on my horse trail. My ancestors have been using these trails since before your ol' man was born - and when you gotta go, 'plop!'"
Bicycle: "Horse, have you no manners? That messy stuff stinks! Besides, haven't you heard that song, this land was made for you and me?"
Horse: "No! Besides, you mess up my serenity with all that dilapidated bicycle structural junk and you hard pack the ground, causing my hoofs to lose traction, then I fall."
Bicycle (losing patience): "Get out of my way. I'm coning through. Besides, there are more of us than your kind."
Horse: "Have you heard about the Saddle Club?"
Bicycle: "Don't go threatening me with a club! Just remember what white man did to Indian."
Horse: "Yes and look who outnumbers white man now in some areas. O.K.! So I must yield my 'right of way' to you. But please bear in mind that your quiet approach from behind spooks me and makes my rider nervous. And please clean up your ancestors' debris - then, get a horse!"
The foregoing was a play on words to make a point.