for April 16, 2013

Beware of those who represent the ‘majority’

In your Friday, April 5, edition, there appeared an article, “Gun-law clash builds in advance of anniversary,” in which Penny Okamoto of Ceasefire Oregon was quoted as saying, “The majority is coming together to stand up to the very small, but loud, number of gun extremists, and we demand action now.”

This is offensive and uncalled for against individuals who support their Second Amendment rights.

I am always suspect when people claim they, or their organization, represent the majority of Oregonians.

What I don’t hear is a discussion of individual rights and how they play in this discussion. We don’t need more gun laws, but rather the enforcement of those laws already on the books.

Simply because one individual went to the Clackamas Town Center and shot up the place is no justification to blame society or take away individual rights.

People who suffer from mental illness or criminals who kill just to kill will not submit to background checks or registration.

These laws will only violate the rights of people who obey the laws and wish to own a gun and will have no impact on gun violence.

Louis H. Bowerman


What council meeting was she at?

After reading the April 9 letter to the editor (“Fairview wins with policy decisions”) from Tamie Arnold, I found myself surprised to see what City Councilor Arnold had written.

I am left wondering, what meeting was she at?

I attended the April 3 City Council meeting and I witnessed a very different story. The point of her self congratulatory letter was to point out that the City Council had apparently done a really good thing in privatizing public events.

That, by itself, is a good point because I think even though the economy is rebounding we still have to be fiscally responsible.

However, what Arnold’s letter to the editor fails to mention is that in that same meeting she tried to take the Fairview Chili on the Green Festival out of the hands of the public group that brought the proposal to the City Council and tried to place it back into the city’s hands and the City Events Committee.

In addition, Arnold took exception to the proposal, specifically the use of the Fairview Chili on the Green logo, signage, city owned tents and tasting kits.

This begs the question, how can Arnold claim this as a victory when on multiple occasions she tried to alter the proposal? Can she really call this a success of privately funding a public event when she tried to put it back into the city’s hands?

If she wishes to have events like this privately funded then she needs to allow them to be privately run.

The contradictions are too large to ignore. I have no issue with any City Council member having questions or wanting to change things, it is their right to do and we as residents of Fairview trust that their actions are for the city’s benefit.

However, when I personally witness a council member act against a proposal one day, then take public credit for it the next, it calls into question their integrity. Councilor Arnold, I simply ask you to pick a side.

Keith A Kudrna


Contract Publishing

Go to top
Template by JoomlaShine