Not pleased with the airport’s joint operating agreement
Why not let us destroy our wetlands, spook our wildlife, congest our city, etc., within a pleasant three- to four-hour drive away?
I only wish I had the capital to put up for an AVIS or Hertz car-rental franchise to be built next to the airport!
My letter is in response to The Daily Triplicate article (“Council supports suing one of its own,” Jan. 7).
When did the Democratic way become a reason to sue citizens who want to put an initiative on the ballot so everyone has a chance to vote on an important issue? One could understand that maybe the new council members may not know, but surely attorney Bob Black and Dennis Burns know better. Dennis Burns has been a city councilman longer than the others. Seems that most of us out here have some sense of right and wrong.
Another question: How can the City Council use city funds to sue one of their own? If so, one of their own could also use city funds to defend themselves. First censure, now sue.
It seems that the fish processors and local developers have the most to gain from the expensive changes to the city waste water treatment plant.
What’s the advantage of taking out the four dams on the Klamath River? The answer in most cases is it might help in getting more salmon.
The disadvantages are immense. The cost will be billions of dollars to remove the dams and millions of tons of silt. The worst part of this is that our states and government haven’t got any money to waste. Seventy-thousand families depend on the electrical power the dams produce, which is the best power, no pollution, the cleanest way to get electricity.
The dams have a great potential in controlling floods in the town of Klamath, which is known for floods that would be worse without the dams.
In my estimation, I would propose more dams be built, more electricity, recreation with more lakes, etc. I truly oppose the removal of the dams. It’s stupid.
Has anyone else noticed how every Associated Press article about Prop. 8 characterizes it as “banning” gay marriage when it actually bans nothing. All it does is mandate that the English language definition of marriage is retained as the legal definition of marriage.
All that does is maintain the same status quo that has existed for thousands of years. To change the definition of a word that is the basis of much law should require the endorsement of the people via a constitutional amendment. It’s not relevant how much it‘s wanted by some, it’s a matter of how fundamental law is made.
The definition of marriage is fundamental in society and in law. Marriage cannot include the union of a person and a plant, an animal, a close relative, a child, multiple adults, nor a person of the same sex. All citizens are limited by the law of the land and the meaning of the language that the law contains.
As for discrimination, all citizens possess the same rights and limitations. Gays are just as free to marry within the definition of marriage. Any union outside of it is not marriage but something else, for which there is no word yet. And why has there never yet appeared (in any article that I’ve seen) any mention of exactly which legal rights are supposedly missing from legal civil unions?
It's an emotional issue but it’s also a constitutional issue, as were all of the rights that have been enshrined in our state and national constitutions. Some things are above and beyond the authority of lawmakers and must be submitted to the people for approval, like medical marijuana was.