Murphy/Morin: Residents didn’t vote on deer killing

To The Editor:

Union City Council voted to kill the deer we have inside the city limits. The whole town was not asked to vote. Forty people attended a meeting and two-thirds of those 40 said the deer should be killed.

Donna Beverage, candidate for Union County Commissioner, said her land was available for a kill site. Now they are arguing over who will pay for cutting and wrapping the meat and the muzzleloaders offered to kill the deer.

We were notified in our water bills of the decision but not notified of a vote.

The deer are beautiful and some of the same ones come back yearly to have their babies. They might eat flowers. I let them have my tulips and roses. How bad is it to have deer eat your flowers? Have you had gophers or rabbits?

Some of us are so upset we don’t know what to do. These deer are not harmful. Instead of being a nuisance they make our town beautiful and quaint. Tourists love seeing the deer, and it gives our town a softness which is not really there in reality. Union is filled with people wanting to run for office and get their name in the paper.

How much meat does a fawn make? What is behind the mind of a person who shoots deer locked up in an enclosure? The rest of us hope you can sleep well at night, and we hope children will not be there. Here in Union that is going to make a man out of you.

Sherry Murphy, Robin Morin


McCracken: Ending terrorism starts at home

To The Editor:

Every terrorist attacking America is viewed as unimaginably evil. We act outraged by any brutality imposed on us.

Yet white America has an ongoing history of terrorism at home and around the world. This continent was wrested from Native Americans through prolonged genocidal attacks. We justified the attacks on religious grounds. Sound familiar? It was fully sanctioned by the U.S. government.

The Chinese were brought here to work and were regularly mistreated and even massacred to avoid paying wages at job’s end.

Later, black Americans were also dehumanized, threatened and murdered indiscriminately by white Christians. They too were considered heathens, therefore not fully human. They were exploited by every means imaginable including brutal killings.

Much of our “aid” to other countries is in the form of weapons. Our tax dollars are regularly given to arms manufacturers who send equipment to countries we are trying to economically exploit. The corrupt governments who are willing to work with U.S. corporations arm their military forces with our weapons. Leaders working for human and environmental justice are then murdered to expedite U.S. corporate profit making. Recently, Berta Caceros, a Honduran environmental and human justice advocate trying to stop exploitation by an American oil company, was murdered. The U.S. government made remarks of regret but likely Caceros was murdered by a donated American weapon intended for that very use.

The United States assassinates leaders around the world who appear threatening to our economic or political interests.

America is responsible for unfathomable human and environmental terrorism here and all around the world. At this point it’s mostly about profit to the 1 percent who own and operate our government.

If we are serious about ending terrorism we must begin at home.

Mary McCracken

Island City

Badger: Risks don’t justify reducing Americans’ freedoms

To The Editor:

Recent events in Florida have precipitated an expected deluge of suggestions for “improving gun safety.” A very smart man, Albert Einstein, made the observation that to keep repeating the same action and expecting a different result was a definition of insanity. The governor of this state proposes the expansion of background checks on firearms purchases. Did she notice that the database used for these checks comes from the same agency (the FBI) that interviewed the killer in the Florida shooting several times and found no basis for any action? Does she have a specific suggestion or just the usual mindless generalities?

Let’s face it, if this is the “land of the free” (certainly not as free as when I was born) then that freedom has costs and obligations. The Orlando killer had repeatedly made statements that would raise questions about his behavior, but the First Amendment protects free speech. The Second Amendment protects (for the moment) our and his right to buy and own firearms. How do we maintain our “freedoms” and yet address people such as are represented by this individual? It will take some very serious thinking and not just the tripe provided by the usual politicals.

If I were inclined to kill a bunch of people, I could find a much more efficient way, aka Timothy McVeigh. The smart domestic nut case doesn’t need a gun.

The political types’ favorite phrase is “to keep us safe.” What do they mean safe? Safety is a relative thing. Is it safe to drive a car? Is it safe to fly in a plane? Is it safe to play football? How about sitting in front of a TV, is that safe? Obviously safety is relative and depends on the activity, the individual and the circumstance. I take risks that seem (to me) to be justified in pursuit of my freedoms.

Life is not guaranteed by any agency. Risks will always exist, and they will be more common in a “free” society. The alternative is a society in which government controls or dictates how, when, where and who administers rather than listens and makes all major decisions. We would appear to be moving in that direction.

H.R. Badger