Voters' choice is clear on GMOs
In response to your front page article, "Cost of genetically-modified crop ban broken down," it is a revelation to discover that any new rule or regulation deemed necessary by the people in a democratic vote will — horrors! — cost money to implement and enforce. How shocking — and absurd.
Shouldn't the question be: "Is this new regulation necessary and will it benefit the people, the lands and the ecology of our area?" That is the question for the voters to ponder.
Of course, the corporate manufacturers of GMO know what they want — monopoly profits and legal immunity from the ghastly results of applying their chemicals as promiscuously as they will.
The choice before the voters is clearly defined by a recent "Friends of the Earth" statement:
"A future dominated by the chemical-intensive, corporate-controlled, industrial agriculture system, or a future based on healthy, sustainable organic foods — that's the choice before us." (Emphasis added.) It would be a boon to democratic governance if our local papers and the mass media truly informed the electorate about the essential issues involved in contentious political debates but, as with the impending global climate disaster, that appears to be a vain hope in our corporat-ocracy.
Report cause, not just the weather
Among the projections climate science indicates for Southern Oregon are: reduced snowpack, extended and more frequent droughts and wildfires, increasing frequency of severe weather and increasing frequency of heavy rainfall, with soil erosion and floods replacing gentle, soil-moistening rain.
Yet reports of these events fail to mention the probable cause: carbon pollution from human activity.
It would be a greater service to the population of Southern Oregon and the planet if those reporting these weather events in our print and broadcast media were to help local residents connect the dots.
This is a plea to weather reporters to serve nonpartisan science and the public, rather than corporate America and extremist politicians who have turned nonpartisan science into a political football. If we cannot trust you to report causation fully and accurately, who can we trust?