VOTE YES ON MEASURE 92 TO LABEL GMOS
Don't be taken in by the opponents' deceptions on Measure 92. Consumers will NOT spend more for food items. Labeling has already occurred in 64 countries with no increase in prices. A current 14-page Consumer Union report last week found that a potential cost to the consumer would be less than a penny a day (if the industry chooses to pass on any minimal change of label expenses even though they have already created labels for 64 countries). Farmers also will not spend millions to comply with labeling because they only need to stamp GMO on their shipments. Consumers simply want to know if packaged, processed foods contain GMOs or a product of a GMO. What does the industry fear in transparency to consumers? Consumers simply want to know if packaged, processed foods contain GMOs or a product of a GMO. Please end this cycle of contamination of our food, soil, water, air, and environment. Vote Yes on Measure 92 to label GMOs in our food supply to allow us the transparency to avoid chemically laden food.
IN REPLY TO "WHY THE WEED BILL COULD FAIL" (9/10)
I was given a copy of the accurately titled, yet snarky and dreadfully-reported story, "Why the Weed Bill Could Fail." You could have read the editorials in the Bend Bulletin, The Daily Astorian, or even pretty good stories in your old paper, the Portland Mercury.
Despite your contempt for the DIY opponents of Measure 91, [they] have been working hard with a fraction of the millions from East Coast billionaires, the left wing version of the Koch Brothers.
As you have noted the race is a close one, despite all the money and conventional wisdom being that dope will out.
Too bad you're not interested in the real story, it's a fascinating one no matter how the vote comes out.
How much ad revenue is the cannabis industry bringing your publication?
IN REPLY TO "LETTERS 10/7-10/14"
Mike Hollern is spouting a bunch of hooey about Measure 90. Sure, we need open primaries to weaken the grip of extremist candidates—but not at the expense of having our choices limited to the two richest contestants. Besides, when an out-of-state blowhard like Michael Bloomberg throws $1.25 million at supporting this measure you can be sure something is rotten about it. Put a measure on the ballot that simply opens our primaries and you've got my vote. But trying to lock us into being limited to only two candidates and I say, "Return to sender."
ELECTION TIME AGAIN
Should we play this to the tune of the Ray Charles song "Crying Time Again"? Bob Dylan aptly summed up our electoral process with the following words: "The man on the stand he wants my vote, he's runnin' for office on a ballot note. He's out there preachin' on the old church steeple, tellin' me he loves all kinds of people. He's eatin' bagles, he's eatin' pizza, he's eatin' chitlins...." These words struck home when one of the state candidate's faithful campaign groupies deposited a piece of campaign "literature" on my doorstep. Mr. Candidate has a picture of himself and his cute family—they are all very picturesque and quaint—on the front of the brochure and at the bottom he has graciously included facts about himself so I can "get to know him." Mr. Candidate feels the first and foremost thing I should know about him is what his favorite beer is, for which I can't thank him enough. Never mind how he stands on the issues, God forbid that that information should take attention away from the fact he is an avid beer drinker in this avid beer-drinking town with at least 20 breweries last time anyone counted. Aside from the fact that this is so humorous, it is also insulting—to me—and I find it extremely disingenuous. But there's more. On the backside of the brochure, Mr. Candidate puts out an open invitation to all those interested in signing up for his team. And he lets it be known he is willing to take assistance from educators, technology leaders, veterans, students, and, of course, "beer lovers." Hey, Mr. Candidate, I can send you some chitlins!
IN REPLY TO "U.S. SENATE: JEFF MERKLEY" (10/15)
Outside of Bend, central and eastern Oregon are pretty much interchangeable. For the populated West Side, everything east of the crest might as well be dragons, never mind that it makes up a much larger geographic portion of Oregon. Sparsely populated, dry and heavily Republican, maybe not dragons, but rodent and raptors love it. Merkley would do well to familiarize himself with the occasional enclave of Democrats here and there, but he's got their vote regardless, right? Even Democrats can be conservative (as in straight-party line voting).
IN REPLY TO "LAW AND DISORDER" (10/15)
While it's very important that law enforcement officials are scrutinized on the appropriate use of force, I think this article should have focused on arrest procedures in Bend (in general) and not that of this gentleman. There is an inference that the Bend police force might be racist by dovetailing this article into the highly controversial Ferguson shooting. Additionally, because one eyewitness said "...she was worried they were kicking the man and treating him more roughly because of his race," is merely her opinion. I'm not bashing the article as a whole; in fact you have a fantastic Q&A. I just feel a bit uneasy that it took an incident with a black teen for the story to be written. It probably should have been written sooner.
I understand why the Source is trying so hard to make this a story. They really want it to be a controversial police encounter. But, based on the facts presented, it's not. I would imagine if you were the officers on the scene, you would like as many of your fellow officers helping you as you could get. Based on the article, the only thing clearly seen (on video, no less) is the individual "resisting, thrashing his body, and jumping up and down" and "screaming expletives at the officers." The article does not make any statements regarding the suspect requiring medical treatment, so I assume he needed none. So let me summarize—several officers were required to subdue a combative suspect, no bystanders were injured, no officers were injured, and the suspect was not injured. Yet, the implication is that something improper was done. Source, you're better than this.