Concerning your Sunday, July 19, 2009, editorial about the demise of the WOPR, you editorial writers and the parties involved must understand what otherwise would seem to be obvious:

That "harvests of timber" in a traditional sense, and "the cutting of smaller-diameter trees and the thinning of overgrown forests" are entirely two separate and different things.

Cutting of smaller-diameter trees is not the same thing as the "harvesting of timber." Without the "reformatting of the smaller trees' wood fiber" itself, the harvesting of smaller-diameter trees ("sticks," really) generally does not make possible the construction of buildings and other structures from wood.

So what is "reasonable timber harvesting" anyway? Is there any such thing? Remember, as the old saying goes ... "One cannot have "his cake and eat it too." The same thing goes for the "timber" of the forests (and fish, by the way). If one "cuts" the timber of the forests (i.e., kills it), he can't have it exist in the forest, except in its dead and also environmentally valuable state, of course.

The cutting of timber and "having" that live timber exist in the forest, are two mutually exclusive things; that is, mutually exclusive concepts, ideas, and/or goals. — Fred Fleetwood, Trail

Capitalism. Socialism. Atheism. Marxism. Communism. Take your pick!

The time has come to remove the rose-colored glasses, draw a line in the sand and speak out. This country is being led down a fast path to destruction.

This president and the Congress have slowly but surely eaten away our freedom. They have spent us into despair.

First it was the bailout. Next car-makers nationalized. Banks next. We now have 32 czars appointed by, and only answerable to, the chief. This basically usurps any power of the Congress. Could it be that these are going to be lieutenants in brown shirts down the line?

The so-called 1,079-page stimulus package was not read before passage. Even Obama did not bother to read it. He just signed it — with a bill containing more pork than a hog farm.

It gets worse. Now it's national health care — another name for socialized medicine.

Believe me, we are sure seeing change. Are we really ready for this? — John Ogle, Grants Pass

Six months to build a bridge over Bear Creek!

Are they going to build it lengthwise? — Walt Kerwin, Medford

Critics of health-care reform argue that health care is a privilege reserved for those who can afford it, not a right for those who cannot.

Health care is neither a right nor a privilege; it is a duty if we are, as many contend, a Christian nation. The founding voice of Christianity taught that if we deny health care to the least of our brethren (and sisters), we deny it to him. — Bill Sherwood, Medford

Share This Story