Document text
Waive the deductible I’m happy to hear that Ashley and Josh Williams’ son, Leviathan, is fine after a shot was fired into their vehicle. However, I was distressed to hear that their insurance company said, “We’re glad your son is OK, and by the way you have a $500 deductible.” Their insurance company should step up and waive the deductible in this case. If their agent is local, shame on him/her for not doing this. I urge their insurance company to waive the deductible. What they would lose in the deductible fee would go far toward good community relations. We are a valley who gives. Certainly the Williams’ family insurance agent can help this young family and give a little. S. O’Neal Medford Pitts column libelous On Jan. 23, one of the MT’s columnists, far-left, Trump-hating Leonard Pitts, commenting on the Jan. 18 confrontation between Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips, essentially invoked the Orwellian offense termed “Facecrime.” Accusing Nick of presenting the face “... of an SS man as he cut off a rabbi’s beard on a Warsaw street, on the face of an Alabama state trooper waiting at the Edmund Pettus Bridge ... It was the eternal expression of the bully at the head of a mob”, Pitts, suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, viciously libeled this young man and should be held accountable. Since that column appeared, the MT has run six more columns by this far-left, black racist, but unlike other writers who, after viewing longer videos of the incident, have apologized for their unwarranted “rush to judgment,” Pitts has yet to offer a single word of apology or regret regarding his libelous trashing of Nick Sandmann. The very fact that his columns continue to appear in the MT indicates that the paper agrees with this Trump-hating racist’s conclusions. I for one hope that Nick Sandmann sues Pitts for every nickel he has or will ever have. Gaither B. Everett Medford What happened on Feb. 23 In the four hours of testimony before the Oregon Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction in Medford, two quite different sides of HB 2020 “facts” emerged. The opposition was based apparently on fear of the cost of HB 2020 on Southern Oregon. The supportive side pointed to the exact opposite — how well the economies of other communities have done post cap and trade legislation. Those opposed said that HB 2020 would have a minimal impact on global climate change so HB 2020 should die. Those in favor talked about the very short scientific time period to act, so HB 2020 was the minimum, they said, that should be undertaken as fast as possible. The emotional passion behind the fear-based argument was more than evident, causing the government panel to urge lower volumes of sound repeatedly. Those for HB 2020 presented at lower volume but with the utmost urgency. In its present form, HB 2020 does address the concerns of the fear-based folks, especially those affected by the transition to a renewable energy economy and particularly rural communities like Southern Oregon. The Joint Committee panel was repeatedly thanked by all for coming to Southern Oregon and listening to everyone. Tamsin Taylor and John Tyler Ashland