THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
A4
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
EDITORIAL
Reversing
the trend
The major rise in COVID-19 cases in Oregon that
started in late July appears to have passed its peak,
with the case rate declining.
But Baker County is lagging behind that trend.
While the statewide rate of cases per 100,000 popu-
lation dropped by 14.3% for the week ending Sept. 18,
Baker County set a record with 139 new cases that
week.
The county’s rate per 100,000 rose by 8.6%, to 822.
That was the fourth-highest rate among Oregon’s
36 counties for that week, behind Harney (1,099 per
100,000), Lake (1,040.2) and Malheur (900).
Four Baker County residents have died this month
after testing positive, bringing the county’s total to 23
deaths during the pandemic.
The record-setting rate of infections, however, is be-
ing driven largely by younger, unvaccinated residents,
who, though much less likely to have life-threatening
effects from the virus, can keep the virus circulating
in the community.
From Sept. 1-15, about 72% of the county’s cases
were in people younger than 50. Unfortunately, those
younger residents also have a much lower vaccina-
tion rate, which means they’re more likely to become
infected and, potentially, to spread the virus to others.
The vaccination rate among residents from age 12
to 49 (children younger than 12 aren’t eligible to be
vaccinated) is 35.8%. The rate for county residents 50
and older is 57.8%.
The value of vaccination is indisputable. Break-
through cases — infections in people who are fully
vaccinated — accounted for just 9.5% of the county’s
cases from Aug. 1 through Sept. 12.
So long as the county’s vaccination rates remain
relatively low — statewide, 74.3% of people 18 and
older are vaccinated — it’s vital that people who feel
ill, regardless of age, strive to limit their contact with
others temporarily.
That precaution, combined with boosting vaccina-
tion rates and wearing masks when social distancing
isn’t possible, should help Baker County join most of
the rest of the state in reversing the recent record-
setting rise in infections and severe illnesses.
— Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor
Your views
Thanks to Senator Wyden for
guiding River Democracy Act
Senator Wyden deserves a big
thank you for initiating and guiding
the River Democracy Act through the
winding channels towards Congres-
sional approval. As this drought and
fi re year has made so clear, protect-
ing our watersheds is fundamental
to countering the effects of climate
change and preserving and enhanc-
ing the capacity of our landscapes to
absorb, hold and release water and
resist fi re.
Several streams I (and others)
nominated are included in the Act.
I had hoped even more watersheds
would be protected, but from tiny
acorns mighty oaks grow, hey? As
drought and fi re persist into the
future and the indispensability of
even small waterways becomes ever
more evident and protections ever
more prevalent, perhaps more private
landowners will see the advantages to
themselves and their neighbors.
The Act however leaves too much
scope for irresponsible logging by ac-
commodating commercial sales under
the aegis of fi re prevention. Too often
the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management reveal their bias
toward commercial harvest over eco-
logical recovery by cutting large trees
and fi re-resistant stands that have
more environmental than commercial
value. Long term ecological values
are subordinated to short term local
economic gain. This needs to change.
The same concern applies to over-
grazing livestock in riparian zones.
Many small and medium-sized steams
are severely degraded by 125 years of
cattle grazing. That’s why more and
more streams are being enclosed by
barbed wire, to keep cows out. It would
help if the Act recognized this fact and
made some practical gesture to address
this particular issue.
Despite the criticisms above, I, like
so many Oregonians, are thankful to
Senator Wyden for The River Democ-
racy Act.
Wally Sykes
Joseph
Health care worker alarmed by
Oregon vaccine mandate
I am a concerned health care
worker. I am alarmed by the recent
vaccine mandate to all health care
workers in Oregon by Gov. Kate Brown.
This mandate is unconstitutional.
We live in America, the greatest
country in the world where we still
have God-given freedoms. We should
have the freedom to choose whether
or not we receive a vaccine. I am a
free-thinking American, I can look at
all the science, consider my options and
conduct my own risk benefi t analysis
and make an informed decision.
We now know that vaccinated
individuals can be infected, spread and
die from COVID-19 just like the unvac-
cinated. Their risk of severe infection
may be less but that doesn’t exempt
them from playing vaccine Russian
roulette of possible side effects of clots,
neurological problems, myocarditis and
even death.
How is it legal to force a treatment
on someone that could cause their
demise? Vaccine companies don’t care.
They make millions and bear no liabil-
ity for injuries or death. According to
the CDC, I have a 99.97% survival rate
in my age group and that’s without the
vaccine.
I believe in freedom, and as a free
American I should be able to make my
own decision, one that was not forced
upon me by fear and coercion of elected
leaders. Freedom is what America was
founded on and is what so many people
died for. Let’s honor their sacrifi ce and
keep America free.
Hospitals across the country are
experiencing staff shortages and
fatigue. Is this really the time to put
a vaccine mandate on all health care
workers that could potentially result
in worse shortages and a deterioration
in patient care and safety? I encourage
the citizens of Union County to stand
behind their local health care workers,
who work tirelessly every day to care
for the sick in our community.
I have seen the pandemic bring
the worst out in many of us. People
are angry and people are fearful. Let’s
not fi nd one more reason to divide us.
Let us instead love one another and
support one another’s medical freedom
of choice.
Lilly Roe
Island City
We’re becoming more accessible, less connected
But not that long ago, if you
wanted to talk with a friend, you
had to use your land line phone at
home. If Mom or Dad or a sibling
was already on the phone; sorry —
you had to wait. But when you got
your chance to use the phone, it was
the best. Tethered to a wall with a
cord and dumbbell-heavy receiver,
that was your chance to connect and
catch up. And if you were not home?
There were these things called
phone booths — a phone inside a
big glass box that took your loose
change (back when we had that, too)
to make a call.
We also used to write letters. Real
letters with a pen and paper. They
required actual handwriting — not
typing on a keyboard. You needed an
envelope and a stamp and a postal
workers to deliver it; it took days and
sometimes longer for your letter to
reach the recipient. Remember those
awesome, nerve-wracking, anxiety-
laden moments of writing, then
mailing a love letter? Some of you do.
Now, they’re largely gone for good.
Today, it’s a few seconds, a couple of
taps or dictation, and a click.
The reality is that when com-
munication was more diffi cult, when
it took more effort and more work, it
mattered more. If you took the time
to write a letter, you really took the
time. You thought about it, maybe
crumpled a few sheets of paper fi rst
before settling on what you really
wanted to say.
People used to look forward to
checking their mailbox each day. If
we got a letter, we would go inside,
sit down, open and read it. Focus.
Smile. Maybe write back. And a
phone call from a friend or grand-
parent? Was it so bad to have to sit
in one place and talk? The phone
cord imposed a structure and forced
us to stay focused, without the fl ex-
ibility to multitask. The conversa-
tion, the person we were writing or
speaking to was what mattered.
Technology is an amazing thing,
it really is. The problem, though, is
that, while technology has created
more conversation and communica-
tion, it has come with a lot less focus.
Less human interaction. Less con-
nection. And that, folks, is just not a
good thing.
There is no going back to the
days of wall phones and writing
regular, lengthy “snail mail” letters.
That doesn’t mean you can’t take
some time to call a friend without
distraction or write them an occa-
sional letter. Tell that loved one how
you feel, what’s going on in your life,
or just “hello.” But don’t do it with an
emoji; do it with a stamp.
lever Cruz can think of, so he’s
pulling it.
This is not a minor hiccup.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is right to
be concerned about a soon-to-be-op- Without those emissaries on watch,
erational Russian gas pipeline. He’s the world is less accountable to U.S.
interests. This newspaper’s report-
wrong to obstruct U.S. diplomacy
ing of Cruz’s “tantrum,” as it was
over it.
For months, Cruz has been hold- characterized by U.S. Rep. Joaquin
ing up dozens of State Department Castro last week, has drawn a
sobering comparison, just days
nominations as leverage to get the
after our nation’s observance of the
Biden administration to reinstate
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The com-
sanctions related to the Nord
mission formed to investigate those
Stream 2 pipeline. It’s an unprece-
dented level of obstruction, affecting attacks identifi ed unfi lled diplomat-
ic posts as a dangerous vulnerability
nearly 80 diplomatic posts.
at the time. Eight months into his
To be clear: Cruz’s actions have
nothing to do with the nominees or term, 57% of President George W.
Bush’s nominees for key national se-
their qualifi cations. The nomina-
curity posts had been confi rmed. At
tions simply appear to be the only
the same point in his tenure, Biden
has just 26%, we reported.
“It is scandalous that these
nominees and many others are be-
ing held up for reasons completely
unrelated to them and the posi-
tions they will hold,” said Sen. Bob
Menendez, D-N.J., who chairs the
Foreign Relations Committee. “Such
irresponsible behavior jeopardizes
our national security.”
Cruz is understandably frustrat-
ed with the Biden administration.
In passing the Protecting Europe’s
Energy Security Act of 2019, Con-
gress stipulated sanctions against
Russia if they pressed construc-
tion of the pipeline. Biden dropped
those sanctions, saying they weren’t
working and the pipeline is all but
operational.
There is speculation that Cruz
wants to show Biden is weak
on Russia in advance of his own
presidential run in 2024. And at
times, we’ve seen Cruz’s libertarian
tendencies lead him to fi nd valida-
tion in an inept government rather
than work toward a better one.
But those factors aside, Cruz is
not wrong to be concerned here. A
2017 report from Rice University’s
Baker Institute for Public Policy
identifi ed, “15 discrete instances
where Russian entities used price
and physical volume manipulation
of crude oil or natural gas supplies
— often amid political tensions —
to pressure consumers located in
Central and Eastern Europe and
the former Soviet countries.” The
pipeline will connect to Germany,
expanding Russia’s control over
the European natural gas market.
Biden needs to show that the U.S.
will stand up to Russian aggression.
But blocking diplomatic confi r-
mations is the most counterpro-
ductive and petulant way for Cruz
to raise those concerns. A critical
part of curtailing Russia’s malign
activities will be working with our
allies. That requires a functioning
diplomatic corps, the very thing
Cruz is kneecapping with this
stunt. He should drop his objections
immediately.
By JULIE and DAVID BULITT
It makes all the sense in the
world: If someone is accessible,
easier to contact, then it is not much
of a reach to assume that we can
easily establish and maintain a con-
nection with that person, right?
Not so much.
The fact is that the more acces-
sible we are, the less connected we
have become.
Remember when there were no
cellphones? Some of you reading this
never experienced such a time. It
might as well be the story of Abra-
ham Lincoln walking miles to school
in the cold Illinois winter with no
shoes on his feet. That’s how ancient
a world without cellphones seems.
Married for 35 years, Julie and
David Bulitt are, respectively, a
family therapist and divorce lawyer.
They are co-authors of “The Five Core
Conversations for Couples.”
OTHER VIEWS
Editorial from Dallas Morning
News: