Law enforcement is not supposed to jump to conclusions about the perpetrator of a crime without evidence, and yet, before having any suspect, the FBI declares that "economic sabotage" was the motive for the destruction of GMO sugar beet crops.
It's not really surprising that the government is biased, since Obama has appointed Monsanto people like Michael Taylor into the very government positions that are supposed to regulate Monsanto's GMOs. However, what excuse does the Mail Tribune have for such bias? Their own front page story (June 21) points out that the location of Syngenta's GMO crops is secret. Of course, Syngenta knows where they are.
The Tribune "Cheers and Jeers" section that same day states: "The people who resort to such acts succeed only in damaging their own cause." They acknowledge that this action hurts the cause of the anti-GMO activists, so why do they assume that's who did it?
Who does have a motive to hurt the anti-GMO cause? Syngenta, of course. Syngenta has both motive and opportunity, so why is the Mail Tribune jumping to the conclusion that Syngenta isn't responsible for the crime? If you don't know who did it, don't assume you do. — Eli Dumitru, Medford
I agree with what D. Prestlin said in the May 25 letter titled "Illegal is illegal." And academically, I too feel that illegal foreigners should not be granted the same privileges as legal immigrants.
However, that does not resolve the ongoing problems of uninsured and inexperienced drivers having accidents on our roads, which will only increase as Oregon will inevitably be getting more illegal foreigners. In much of California, where so many of our illegal foreigners come from, one can manage quite well with the various transit systems. But in Oregon, one must have a car to get around. So many of the illegal foreigners who buy a car here have never driven before and are learning the "rules of the road" as they go along.
But if Gov. Kitzhaber's law goes through, then anyone wanting a driver's license must pass a driver's exam and must also be insured. This would also serve as a better means of documenting the addresses of many of the illegal foreigners.
So in the end, what would better serve to lessen the continuing problem of uninsured and inexperienced drivers on our roads? Doing the right thing, or exercising common sense? You decide. — Wayne Reiman, Eagle Point
"Grow government and limit freedom"? Is that what Donald Young thinks this is all about (letter, June 19)?
I assure him it's much more serious than that. The International Energy Agency's position on the dangers of rising greenhouse gases lines them up with other agencies that accept the seriousness of the situation. Our Pentagon now lists global warming as a serious destabilizing force in the world. International insurance agencies have joined forces because of the increasing risks of more severe weather events. Every single developed country's national science academy, including China's, now agrees that increasing greenhouse gases are a serious problem.
The technical geekery of climate modeling is meaningless to most of us. So we pay attention to those climate scientists and organizations that study the issue — 97 percent of which agree with the IEA, our National Academy of Sciences, for example. Why would Mr. Young ignore them and reference some fringe scientist like Roy Spencer who has been repeatedly debunked by numerous climate scientists? Is he aware that Spencer is part of the Heartland Institute, and the George C. Marshal Institute?
What it is about is leaving a functioning and healthy world for our kids and grandkids. — Carl Prufer, Ashland