Letters for July 2, 2009

Letter of the week
Lazy butts

At the bus stop, I watched as a guy tossed his cigarette butt in the street even though he sat—literally—beside a rubbish bin. What are the chances?

I was walking beneath the l6th Street freeway overpass when, from above me, a cigarette butt comes flying at me out of a passing car. Somebody didn’t want to dirty up their car, so they dumped [it] on me.

Hey, I’m a smoker too, but learned a long time ago that the easiest habit to break is not littering with your tiny little cigarette butts. My solution? I step on them to extinguish them, then stick them in my pocket or back in my pack of cigs, then toss them when I’m near a rubbish bin.

No wonder everyone’s annoyed with smokers. Aside from the obvious (fires, pollution), aren’t you embarrassed you still do this? I stopped doing it initially because I didn’t want people to think I was a total inconsiderate moron. It’s one tiny little piece of trash. Can’t you figure something else to do with it besides throw it on the ground? Will it take another price increase to motivate you to join me in at least trying?

Katrina Kole
Sacramento

Protect elders during renovation

Re “California renovation” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Feature, June 18):

This article was very informative. However, most people I speak with are interested in two things. First, changing the budget passage to a simple majority, and second, revising Proposition 13.

From personal contacts, I have learned that the major beneficiaries of Proposition 13 are corporations, including large farming companies. These so-called “loopholes” should be changed. However, there are many elderly people that would be forced to sell their homes if higher property taxes are levied. Is it not possible to have a means-testing provision so that people are not hurt economically?

If these two issues are not going to be considered, then what’s the point in the first place? Also, what’s to prevent gridlock at the convention leading to more chaos?

I would like to know if the current tax rate is the highest ever, or is it not? If Californians are no longer willing to support a graduated income tax, then we probably don’t need any government at all. We could make every single activity in California a toll!

Robert A. Schweissingere
Grass Valley

Family courts should unite families

Re “Family-law makeover” by Ted Cox (SN&R Frontlines, June 25):

I can’t thank you enough for this timely article.

Parental Alienation Syndrome, promoted by the family court system, is not a recognized disorder by scientific and medical communities because it lacks validity and reliability. Furthermore, PAS “deprogramming” techniques divide relationships rather than unite.

It is in the best interest for the child when parents work together. Children want this!

A close friend lost her 8-year-old daughter when she was labeled an alienator by a reunification therapist. She didn’t get to see, hear or talk to her daughter for 60 days, and was thereafter allowed one-hour visits once a week. Many parents would be angry if this happened to them. A one-hour visit once a week: How does this maintain the parental bond? Sounds like reverse alienation to me! Ripping a child out of a loving family environment with the family courts’ blessing is child abuse!

Children should have the right to decide who they want to live with, and mental-health professionals should be held accountable for peddling false information.

Terry Loff
Carmichael

Legalization is a hoot

Re “Everybody must get stoned?” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, June 18):

Thanks for the levity this morning. You’ve highlighted the absurdity of the current fears behind the prohibition movement (Visine, munchies—heh).

I must take exception, however with your ultimate conclusion. If, on the one hand, you merely argue for reflection in order to preserve the culture of compassion, then who can argue with that? But to reduce the current tidal wave against prohibition as simply another California gold rush (green rush?) is to grossly simplify and to really miss the point.

To be sure, cannabis legalization will not be a panacea, but the current state of affairs cannot continue. We’ve had nearly a hundred years of cannabis prohibition, and the costs just keep escalating. Anyone truly interested in preserving the culture of compassion should reflect for a moment on the other worthy venues that could benefit from the $40 billion we waste annually on prohibition. The responsible, measured and already thought-out response to our present quagmire known as the “war on drugs” (more correctly, a war against U.S. cities and citizens) is to stop wasting our resources on nonviolent so-called crime.

No one dies from consuming marijuana, but many police officers do die in the line of duty as they pursue the black-market operators created by the prohibition movement. What would one concerned with preserving a culture of compassion say about needlessly discarding our brave law enforcement officers?

To your point: Just because some stand to gain money from legalized cannabis, medical or otherwise, let’s not dismiss the cause for ending prohibition. There’s nothing wrong with a little entrepreneurial activity, especially if we can cut costs at the same time. The time to end cannabis prohibition is now.

Lance Farrell
via e-mail

Jesus is not conservative

Re “Liberal as Jesus” by Kel Munger (SN&R Sacreligious! June 18):

Thank you for piece about Brent Bourgeois. I, too, wonder about the connection between Jesus and the right wing. Jesus does teach liberal ideas.

I look forward to reading Mr. Bourgeois’ book.

M. Schultz
Grass Valley

What anti-nuke establishment?

Re “Underestimating the wackos” (SN&R Letters, June 18):

A recent [letter writer] suggests that “maybe logic will (for once) prevail over the fear-mongering anti-nuclear establishment,” allowing production of more nuclear plants, as though those who protest nuclear plants amount to an “establishment,” and Westinghouse and [General Electric] are simple citizens of our republic. Apparently, the nuclear-industry establishment has successfully convinced this person that anyone who opposes them is an unreasonable “fearmonger.”

The truth is something else.

Nuclear power’s most intractable problem is its fuel, which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years, but we need to store spent fuel in containers that can maintain their integrity for a few hundred years.

Could proposing nuclear plants shift costs to those later milleniums? Gosh! I wonder!

Meanwhile, Amory Lovins (an actual scientist) says that when you account for all of the mining and milling costs, nuclear is not that energy-efficient or carbon neutral. Nuclear power may actually make global warming worse, if only indirectly. (Look it up on Democracy Now!’s Web site.)

Lovins goes on to say that the market has already spoken about its preferred sources of energy. Unless massive government subsidies are in play, power companies are proposing no new nuclear plants. They are pursuing renewables and conservation instead, because these are more profitable.

Oh yes, and they don’t leave nuclear waste behind.

Mark Dempsey
Orangevale

We need to think like ants

Re “The lights will stay on” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, June 11):

First, there is plenty we can do to stop nuclear power. Why would anyone give up before even trying? Pathetic.

Second, all those who think nuclear energy will save us have gotten way ahead of themselves. Before we hare off on this wild goose chase, we need to stop and take a careful look at our actual needs—clean air and water, healthy food and warmth—and find the most direct way to obtain them. For example, don’t go buy dandelion greens when you can easily grow your own. Why buy eggs when hens will provide them in exchange for kitchen scraps and bugs?

It’s my professional engineering opinion (mechanical and domestic) that it is perfectly possible to live comfortable lives without any nuclear or coal power. Ants manage to construct large nests with sophisticated heating and cooling features that keep temperatures just right everywhere inside. If we are as smart as ants, we can surely do the same.

Some may say that there are too many people on the planet to manage without nuclear energy. It’s probably true that there are too many people, and after everyone gets finished covering up more potential gardens with asphalt, it’s even more likely.

But even nuclear energy can’t defy the law of diminishing marginal returns. The more you do, the less you get. So, just as more roads will never solve congestion, more nuclear [power] will never solve energy demand. We’ll always need more than we have until we get to be as smart as the ants (let alone as smart as the coyotes).

Muriel Strand
Sacramento

Papers down the Internet tubes

Re “Layoff lessons” by Ramon Coronado (SN&R Essay, June 11):

It is so sad that they had to let some people go with The Sacramento Bee. I am sure there are more people that they might soon get rid of. Who knows what the economy will bring? Most newspapers are just going down the tubes, because of [the] Internet.

Randi Ishida
Sacramento

Pollan was less than impressive

Re “Back to nature” by Jeff vonKaenel (SN&R Frontlines, June 4):

I wasn’t at all impressed with Michael Pollan’s lecture last [month]. I felt it was a waste of my $20. He could have FedExed in his comments. Most of what he spoke about was “canned” and regurgitated from his old books.

Pollan repeatedly skirted around issues when asked questions at the Q&A session just as adeptly as a politician. After the book signing was completed, he had plenty of free time to talk to attendees. Several people asked him questions about his opinion regarding Codex Alimentarius, [genetically modified organisms], Monsanto, transnational corporate cartel agribusiness and the scandal with CCOF certifying fertilizer as “organic” that turned out to be full of petrochemical ammonia sulfate. Pollan had “no comment” to all of these questions asked him by folks at the lecture.

What planet is this guy on? Is he just yet another millionaire journalist living in the Golden Gourmet Ghetto of the People’s Republic of Berkeley, munching on his pricey, Slow Food movement yuppie nouvelle cuisine? What happened to the investigative journalist who asked hardball questions about food policy?

He also had “no comment” on the use of water bottled in plastic containers at the event, which is known to be damaging to the environment. Spare me from this mask of benevolence and what allegedly passes for the um, ahem, “progressive movement.”

Name withheld by request
Sacramento