Letters for October 3, 2002

You’ve created a monster!

Re “Best of Sacramento” (SN&R Cover, September 26):

A billion thanks to SN&R readers for voting me best newscaster. Though I personally am surprised that any station would allow a hack like me on the air on a daily basis, I accept this honor with pride!

The people who came in second and third (Dave Walker and Lois Hart, and Cristina Mendonsa respectively) are true, dedicated news people and definitely more deserving than me, but again thanks!

I’m a big fan of SN&R (and I’m not just saying that to kiss ass in the context of this thank-you letter), and now I’m a big fan of SN&R readers. Wait a minute, that means I’m a fan of myself … what an egotistical bastard I’ve become. See what you’ve done? You’ve created an f’ing monster!

I’ve got to go work on my spicy personal ad for next week’s issue.

SN&R readers, bless you in all you do.

Mark S. Allen
Sacramento

Sacrifice trees, win the White House

Re “Sierra Standoff” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Cover, September 19):

5.3 million years ago, virtually all the tree genera now in existence were growing profusely. We, the human race, have only been around for 150,000 years. Since then, we’ve succeeded in destroying 96 percent of their habitat. If we keep this up at the rate we’re going, we’ll destroy a whopping 90 percent of the little bit we have left in California during the next 100 years.

We effectively have no natural predator. How ironic it is that the planet itself will be our natural predator when it can no longer sustain us? If we continue this current rate of forest destruction, that will happen. We will lose our ability to filter out the pollutants in the air naturally (thereby significantly increasing global warming and its disastrous effects) and will destroy our watersheds due to soil erosion and silt (no more clean drinking water for us).

So, I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration is willing to sacrifice even more of our old-growth trees for money. In doing that, they sacrifice the health and safety of our future generations. But, at least they can count on timber-industry dollars for their next White House bid. Very sad, indeed.

Jennifer Metz
Sacramento

Watch out for enemies of the forest

Re “Sierra Standoff” by Cosmo Garvin (SN&R Cover, September 19):

I have two observations on this article.

First, the Sierra described by Mr. Hanson is certainly different from the Sierra in which I live and travel every day. On private lands, I see forests that are generally pretty healthy. On federal lands, I see forests that are dying from neglect with huge environmental and economic losses for American taxpayers.

Second, Mr. Hanson is so blinded by his hatred for corporate America that he is unable to see the forest for the trees. Many of his statements are so outrageously untrue and full of bias that it amazes me that he has any credibility left.

During my years of living in the Sierra, I have seen my share of poor management on federal lands. Some of the clear-cuts and road projects were poorly designed and executed. However, that said, I can assure you that the most serious example of poor management on federal lands has been the decision to halt virtually all timber-management activities, including harvesting timber.

This policy of neglect has allowed these once beautiful forests to deteriorate into tinderboxes of heavily overstocked stands where green trees are intermixed with the dead and dying. Brush has grown to the point that fuel ladders are commonplace, and the opportunity for catastrophic crown fires exists almost everywhere.

It’s ironic that people like Chad Hanson, who claim to be friends of the forest, are, in reality, enemies of the forest. Their advocacy of deceit, litigation and obstruction has been the real cause of this dangerous and destructive new direction in the forest. If they really cared about protecting and enhancing forest health instead of raising funds for their advocacy positions, then they would get out of the way and let trained resource professionals manage the forests.

H. James Holmes
Brownsville

Content, not color

Re “Overcoming Adversity in Oak Park” by Joe Wessels (SN&R News, September 19):

I was very dismayed to read your story about a woman who was recently the victim of a crime.

I was especially dismayed to learn she now has begun to judge people by the color of their skin. Toward the end of the story she states: “Now I’m terrified when a black man walks by my house.”

Is she now judging people based on the color of their skin instead of the content of their character?

With all the strides African-Americans have made since the civil-rights movement, it is a shame some people continue to judge us by our skin color.

Anthony Morehead
via e-mail

Lock your doors!

Re “Overcoming Adversity in Oak Park” by Joe Wessels (SN&R News, September 19):

I have been living in Oak Park for seven years. I work at the UC Davis Medical Center and graduated from Sacramento City College. I found the article to be very racist and distorted.

First of all, Oak Park is not predominantly black. There is a mixture of all races. Second, would Ms. Moyer say that she feared all white men, if she was robbed by one? Could it be possible that she always feared black people?

I think she easily could solve one of her problems by keeping her doors locked, regardless of what neighborhood she lived in, or just move back to Salt Lake City.

Anthony D. Jordan
Sacramento

You call this a living wage?

Re “Reviving the Living Wage” by Chrisanne Beckner (SN&R News, September 19):

It’s about time something was done about the living-wage issue!

A week or so after the information came out that a “living wage” for this area is $10-$12.84 an hour, I was offered a job requiring both a college education and substantial experience for $10 an hour and no benefits! The employer told me the wage was non-negotiable, take it or leave it. I left it. I refuse to take a job that doesn’t pay enough to cover even my minimum living expenses.

Not to mention, I can get at least $10 an hour with benefits, as a typist or receptionist, without the additional stress and responsibility of paralegal work!

The employer suggested I was darn lucky to find a part-time job paying even that much. He was wrong.

A few days later, I went into business for myself. I charge several times what he was offering to pay me, for the same type of work. I work the number of hours I want, when I want, and I’ve never yet had a potential client tell me I’m charging too much. (They’re usually surprised that my hourly rate is so low.) Moreover, as my own boss, I don’t need to accept assignments I find distasteful (like dealing with whiny, emotional, overanxious clients, which apparently would have been a big part of the job I was offered at less than a “living wage”), and I can take as many vacation days as I want.

K. M. Campbell
Sacramento

Get a green woman

Re “Bring on the Matriarchy” (SN&R Capital Bites, September 19):

You fail to mention the Green Party. Peter Camejo’s the candidate for governor, but, if you check the other Greens, I bet you’ll find at least one woman, if not more.

Shame on you for this omission.

Leah Zeff
Sacramento