Avoid biased articles
I enjoy reading The Bulletin every morning; I find it a great resource for local and national news. However, I am disturbed by the jaded articles, specifically those from the New York Times News Service, being published in the front pages of the paper. I understand the need to source articles for national and international news, but some of the opinions in many of these articles are so strong the actual story gets overshadowed.
For example: the March 15 article on Page A3 with the headline “In 2005, Trump wrote off more than $100M in losses.” The headline is misleading and anyone with basic knowledge of wealth and tax structure can understand the misrepresentation on display in the headline. The article that follows is equally biased.
I hope you take this into consideration when sourcing articles. I would encourage you to choose articles without bias that present both sides of the coin on a given story.
Jail release baffling
I want to try to understand the front-page story in your March 16 issue of The Bulletin by Aubrey Wieber, “Hunger strike gets perennial candidate out of jail.”
Let me see. If we get put in jail, we will be released from jail if we stop eating and declare ourselves to be a “political prisoner.” Golly, that makes sense, doesn’t it? I can imagine the food quality at the county jail isn’t quite gourmet, and maybe the jail staff no longer puts flowers on the food tray to make the meals more attractive. So we simply stop eating and the authorities will see the error of their ways and let us out of jail. Oh, but don’t forget: We also have to declare ourselves to be a “political prisoners.” Must be. Surely we’re not in jail because we’ve committed a jail-worthy offense and are there to be punished.
I now better understand the story.
But, with more reasonable thinking, why not simply let the offender starve to death in his cell, if he chooses to do so? It saves the taxpayer money and, if the guy croaks, so what!
Protect the Owyhee
I attended Sen. Jeff Merkley’s recent Deschutes County town hall in Redmond. And I felt extremely heartened that several people brought up an issue that is critical to all Oregonians — keeping our wild public lands in federal ownership. These wild places are a legacy for all Americans, and tended well they will continue to provide recreation, solitude, economic benefits and wildlife habitat for hundreds of years. But if out of federal ownership, they’ll be lost forever.
I’d add to this sentiment to say that some of the best unspoiled federal public lands we have left are in Oregon’s Owyhee country. The Owyhee Canyonlands support elk, antelope and bighorn sheep. Just three paved roads cross millions of acres of canyons and rolling hills. Rivers with clean water and native trout weave through the region. The Owyhee is a treasure, and no matter the politics of the day, it deserves permanent protection.
The good fortune of remoteness has preserved the Owyhee thus far, but to fail to continue preservation into the future would be a terrible option. Development pressure — particularly the potential for mining and natural gas extraction — continues to close in on the Owyhee. Had I made it to the microphone, I’d have urged the senator to champion permanent protection for the Owyhee. It’s time to craft a solution that protects the Owyhee in a way that will keep it the way it is today. We owe it to generations yet to come!
Rename the wall
We keep hearing from the corporate media about “Trump’s border wall.” We should all keep in mind that “Trump’s border wall” was authorized by Congress in 2006 — yes, 2006 — and that U.S. Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del., all voted in favor of it. I think it would be more appropriate to call it the “Clinton-Obama-Biden border wall.” No doubt there would objection to doing so from certain quarters.