Pin It

Letters 6/22-6/29 

Photo of the Cascades by Sheryl French. Follow her on Instagram @frenchsheryl and tag @sourceweekly for a chance to be featured in Lightmeter!

Photo of the Cascades by Sheryl French. Follow her on Instagram @frenchsheryl and tag @sourceweekly for a chance to be featured in Lightmeter!

Who is Telling Us That Hillary Clinton is Unlikable and Untrustworthy?

Bernie Sanders began his campaign as a person whose genuineness, candor, likeability and issues appealed to many of us. However, eventually the smell of power took over and, as it did, Bernie resorted to the very tactics that most of us do not respect, and his dignity and credibility went with it. His reasons for demeaning Hillary Clinton are apparent and selfish. They should not influence out judgment.

The Republican Party literally hate Hillary Clinton for two reasons. First, she is a Democrat. Republicans are the Part of ME. "ME" is the Party itself, first and foremost. The Republican party exists for itself, its own power and power for its predominately white constituents known to be the upper class, wealthy, management, elitists, corporations and the like. PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY. The Democratic Party its the Party of "WE." It views our society as being collective, diverse and as not having equal opportunity (yet) to explore our individual potential regardless of race, religion, or lack thereof, gender, gender identity, etc. As such, the Democratic Party, even with its known flaws, tries to move us ALL forward and tries to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Initially, it appeared to many of us that it was just the Clintons that encouraged Republican hatred, ridicule, scandal and investigations. We turned to President Obama, only to learn that he too warranted hatred, derision, disrespect, obstruction and judicial obstruction of his policies. Of course, the Clintons and the Obamas are DEMOCRATS - the enemy of the Party of ME. So, do we allow the Republican Party to define our nominees, our leaders, or do we make up our own minds, trust our own instructs and decide for ourselves who we "like" and who we "trust?"

Finally, there is "Society." In the 1950s and 1960s, Society was telling nice, young white women, despite a college degree, to keep their heads down, get married and have children. That was not enough for Hillary Clinton. She wanted to do more. Therefore, she dared to raise her head about the "line of anonymity." In so doing, she became a target. She was targeted by other white women and, of course, certain white males. Some white women, instead of seeing her as a role model for their futures, felt threatened by the fact that she did not confirm their chosen life role. Some white men just felt threatened. Their PLACE IN SOCIETY was being threatened. So, they attacked.

But Hillary Clinton is still standing. It may be that being "liked" is not all that relevant to being President of the United States and Commander in Chief. Hillary would probably say that she prefers to be respected and that she is willing to earn that respect.

Who is your source for "liking" or "trusting" Hillary Clinton and what are their motives for trying to get you to adopt their views instead of originating your own?

~Carolyn Hill


All the pundits and blowhards need to go back to John McCain's comments on why he supports Trump, which was basically because he (Trump) is the one chosen by the voters. None of the other goony clowns in that sideshow were chosen, just Trump. The Republicans have only their idiotic selves to blame for not fielding a better team, which shouldn't have been very difficult, considering the one they ran. Deposing Trump in Cleveland and running another candidate would make it blatantly clear to even the stupidest segments of the American electorate that we no longer have a democratic system of government in this country (did we ever)? Are the goons running the show willing to risk hammering that home to the sheep and cattle? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

~Marco Munez

In response to "Oregon's Education Crisis," (5/25)

In your May 25th editorial on Oregon's Education Crisis you correctly illustrated the incredibly complicated funding pickle our state's education system faces.

However, you said that Oregon has the highest minimum corporate tax rate in the country. You also mentioned that the $5 billion in revenue that the A Better Oregon campaign (aka: IP28) will generate was "not specifically tied to education." Neither of these things are true.

In fact, Oregon has the country's lowest corporate taxes, and the revenue collected from IP28 has not only been specifically earmarked for education, but it has also been earmarked for senior services and healthcare.

IP28 has assembled a coalition of 300+ community groups, businesses, professional health care workers, nonprofits, community leaders, organized labor unions and professional educators to hold our state legislatures accountable.

When it does pass in November, we will continue to hold our representative's feet to the fire to make sure that badly needed revenue ends up in the classrooms, in services for seniors, and helps some of the 400,000 Oregonians who have fallen through the cracks and still have no health care.

I know what you're thinking: "We can't trust our state legislatures with a $5 billion blank check. How do we know those funds will end up in the classroom, or for services for seniors and health care?"

As I mentioned before, our work is not done after the ballot measure passes. We still live in a democracy. We need to keep pressure on our state representatives - and that's exactly what the A Better Oregon coalition plans to do. Would you rather "trust" C-corporations like Pfizer, Bank of America & Comcast who are happy to hide their profits in offshore accounts and pay their CEOs exorbitant annual salaries?

"Isn't this really just a sales tax that low income consumers will end up paying?"

No, IP28 was specifically crafted to target C corporations with more than $25 million in Oregon sales. That's less than 1 percent of Oregon businesses.

"But won't the companies simply pass the costs onto consumers?" Not if they want to stay competitive. Cysco is not going to create a separate price structure just for Oregonian restaurants or breweries. If they do, it sounds to me like a great opportunity for local farmers markets, small farms and for local restaurants and breweries to buy local and finally lose their dependence on big out-of-state corporations.

Here are the current realities Oregon's educational community faces:

-Oregon is ranked 39th in funding out of 50 states.

-38th in overall performance

-We have the 3rd largest class sizes in the country

-1 in 4 students don't graduate from high school

-Bend LaPine District spends $2,100 below the national average per student.

We need this revenue. When Oregon students do better, we all do better. Businesses and our communities need an educated healthy work force, and we all need something besides poverty to look forward to as senior citizens.

A Better Oregon (IP28) is a step in the right direction and a very important piece to an incredibly complicated funding puzzle that Oregon currently faces.

~Travis Overley

Travis ~ Thank you for your informed letter on IP28. Continue the discussion over a coffee on us! Pick up your Palate gift card at the Source office.


Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Latest in The Mailbox

Readers also liked…

© 2016 LAY IT OUT INC | 704 NW GEORGIA, BEND, OREGON 97703  |   Privacy Policy

Website powered by Foundation