Measures 66, 67 opposed nearby

Measures 66, 67 opposed nearby

The front page of the Feb. 6 Ashland Daily Tidings featured an article titled, "Measures 66, 67 passed easily in Ashland." It mentioned "both measures passed by nearly 80 percent, preliminary results show." Perhaps in Ashland and by Oregon voters in Portland, Salem, and Eugene it did. So what? Not so "rightfully" in Eastern Oregon: Klamath , Lake, Harney Counties, etc. In fact, according the front page of the Feb. 3 Lake County Examiner in Lakeview, both measures 66 and 67 were vastly opposed by voters.

Both measures 66 and 67 passed in a special statewide election on Jan. 26, though by and large Lake County voters voiced their opposition to the two tax-based measures. Out of the 2,830 ballots received and counted at the Lake County Clerk's office following the election, 1,901 votes were in opposition to Measure 66, or 67.65 percent of the participating voters. A total of 905 votes were in favor of the measure, or 32.25 percent of the participating voters. For ballot Measure 67, 1,925 voters (68.31 percent overall) voted in opposition to the measure's passage, while 893 voters (31.69 percent overall) voted in support of the measure.

All the aforementioned figures are courtesy of the Lake County (Lakeview) Clerk's Office.

Source: The Lake County Examiner (www.lakecountyexam.com).

James A. Farmer

Ashland

Messages on school lunches misleading

I didn't read Ted Cantfield's letter to the Tidings about school lunches, but I did happen to see David Martosko's response to it. Martosko's message was clear: Don't trust Cantfield because he represents a "deceptively named" special interest group called the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine. But I had to laugh when Martosko signed his letter as a representative of the Center for Consumer Responsibility. Nothing deceptive about that name, right? It sounds like a group of consumer advocates. But it's not.

As SourceWatch documents, the Center for Consumer Responsibility is really "a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries." (Check it out at sourcewatch.org). And Martosko? A quick Google search reveals that he's paid to lobby on behalf the CCR's corporate sponsors.

So his letter is just as phony as he claims Cantfield's is. After all these years, it still amazes me how little shame people such as Martosko have. What a hypocrite!

John Javna

Ashland