Letters for August 4, 2016
Re “The importance of preserving nature” (Guest comment, by Doug Alexander, July 28):
Mr. Alexander left out some very important points in his guest commentary. First, we must take a look at what drives both human consumption and procreation if we are to truly begin “preserving nature.” I contend that the patriarchal paradigm humanity has lived under for thousands of years has had the biggest influence on how humans view and treat the planet.
Men have controlled all areas of human life throughout the millennia: political, religious, social, environmental. The majority of environmental degradation has been perpetrated by men. For example, William R. Hearst was/is responsible for much of the deforestation in this country when he and two other businessmen successfully lobbied for the prohibition of hemp.
Alexander suggests encouraging women to “develop job skills” as one solution. What of the African, Muslim and other nationalities of women who have little access to employment because of prevailing sexism and who are routinely raped by their husbands? What of women whose religion—Catholic, Mormon, etc.—pressures them to procreate? What of the sense of “God given” entitlement these patriarchal religions have granted men?
Unless we address these issues, we cannot begin to address the preservation of nature, much less, of our species.
What about Costco?
Re “New plan, same problems” (Editorial, July 28):
Both Walmart and Costco largely sell merchandise made in third world countries, and so I just don’t get why we keep beating up on Walmart while we didn’t do so with Costco. Costco certainly takes a lot of business away from many of their local competitors.
My impression has been that when Costco (mostly middle- and upper-class customers including myself) asked to bulldoze their store and build one almost twice as large, there wasn’t a lot of resistance in Chico. Many people even celebrated the massive expansion. Walmart (who tends to have lower-income customers) is again asking to increase their size. There seems to be a lot of resistance from many in our community to Walmart’s request. Which I just don’t understand. Where is our fairness?
Case in point
Re “Mutual respect” (Letters, by Maurice Picard, July 28):
After reading Maurice Picard’s response to my editorial, I retrieved last week’s CN&R from the recycle bin to ensure myself that someone else’s submission did not get put in under my name. You see, Mr. Picard makes several observations that have no basis in the column I wrote.
First, he indicates “modern-day weapon owners are [not] concerned about government tyranny,” yet a letter from one in a previous CN&R indicating just that was the stimulus for my writing the column.
Secondly, he indicates President Obama and Hillary Clinton want to take away our right of gun ownership, yet neither of them has ever said anything of the kind. They, as responsible officials concerned about public safety, believe gun ownership should be no different than the “right” to drive a car. In every state you have to prove you are capable, mentally and physically, to operate a dangerous machine in public.
Third, he claims he supports my right “not” to own weapons, yet there is no indication in the column whether I do or don’t. In truth, having been a law enforcement officer for five years and a life-long hunter, I own several firearms.
Mr. Picard adeptly proves my case that fiction overrides fact in the pro-gun community.
In regards to the Second Amendment, I have never in all my years of owning guns heard the U.S. government say they were going to come and take all our guns away. That is a ridiculous, worn-out piece of rhetoric and propaganda that the NRA has gotten away with for the past countless decades.
A worthy objection
Re “Not amused” (Letters, by John Henry Lyons, July 28):
A letter-writing fetish is a high-wire act sans net, and I have fallen on the bone-crunching tarmac of a rebuke by fellow letter writer John Henry Lyons. The Steel Driven’ Man has rightly hammered my posterior for renaming the future Empress of the Northern Hemisphere, Melania Trump, “Melanoma Rump.” I regret my insensitivity.
In my gossamer-thin defense: I duly considered “Queen Melodious Rumptrumpet.” But, who survives the eye-burning wrath of the NFL (National Flatulence League)? I wondered about “Malevolence Trumpstrumpet,” but the legendary vengeance of the International Union of Sex Workers had me scared stiff! What about “Great Royal Wife Malfeasance Trumpmoneytreeshakingmama?” Granted, that’s a pretty obvious one, but SGOLD (Society of Gold-diggers On Loan to Donald) would have had my basal cell carcinoma-ridden hide! “Her Royal Yuge-ness, Malodorous Stumpwatertrumpeterswan?” No! Ducks Unlimited would have peppered my precious derriere with a pound of steel shot! Lord, Lord!
This proper naming of our future FLOTUS is not an easily solved problem. Regardless—and regret very briefly aside—I am delighted that after writing eight zillion letters, on as many oh-so-weighty subjects, I have elicited an objection worthy of serious consideration.
Judge them on merit
Democrats made a huge deal out of electing Barack Obama as the first black president. Now, as expected, they’re celebrating the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female party nominee for president.
So, what’s next?
Should our first Cambodian nominee for president receive such accolades? How about the first Asian? Of course, the first gay or transsexual deserves equal treatment. And then, by all means, let’s not fail to recognize the first Muslim, Jew or Hare Krishna?
Where does this insanity end? When does it ever end?
Dare I say, how about we judge our candidates solely on the basis of their character, qualifications, vision and leadership without regard to gender, sexual persuasion, religious affiliation or ethnicity?
‘Oblivious to reality’
Bernie Sanders’ speech would have been extremely admirable were it not so unrealistic. He went on and on about the great things government was going to do for people, but didn’t indicate how it was going to be paid for.
Trump, I think, has a better grasp of practical reality, and his enormous wealth is proof he knows how to use it to accomplish goals. Albeit, much of his wealth has been accrued through manipulating artificial (governmental) systems. I also don’t like his “new” view on abortion, but the significance of that issue’s small potatoes compared to immigration.
Whether his resolutions to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. and to deport millions is realistic or not, I appreciate his acknowledgment that immigration’s a problem and his resolve to stop it. One thing’s certain: Crime, debt, inflation, cultural erosion, overpopulation and all the other problems immigration brings won’t be slowed by a president who states in his (or her) campaign that he (or she) welcomes immigrants. What that indicates to me is they’re either oblivious to reality or willing to sell their soul to get elected. Either way, they shouldn’t be president.
Reporter Robert Speer made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Bill Seguine, the point man for Enloe’s expansion project, to get a response to Chico Avenues Neighborhood Association’s criticisms (see “Park or parking lot?” Newslines, July 28). After press time, Enloe spokeswoman Christina Chavira provided the following responses to CANA’s charges:
Re: CANA’s complaint that only one house has been retrofitted for noise reduction, Chavira points out that many residents chose the option of taking cash and doing the retrofitting themselves.
Re: the allegation that Enloe hasn’t repaired some neighborhood streets damaged during construction, Chavira responded that the hospital had contributed $500,000 to street repair, more than required by the agreement.
Re: the “awkward” shape of Magnolia Street. Enloe states that this is what neighbors have said they wanted.
Re: valet parking service. Enloe continues to offer it (except on weekends).
This note has been appended to the online version of the story. —ed.
On the A-bombs
On Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, 150,000 Japanese were vaporized, incinerated, or impaled with debris. Later, thousands of others would die of burns and cancer. Did the Allies have a choice? Eleven days prior, Japan rebuffed one last plea to surrender. Had the Allies invaded the home islands, millions would have been killed.
For over a decade, the Japanese military had brutalized Asia, massacring over 10 million Chinese alone. They had unspeakably raped, tortured and murdered millions of others in Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Guinea, the Philippines and myriad islands. For every POW dying in German captivity, four succumbed to disease, starvation and sadistic enslavement in hell ships and Japanese prisoner of war and forced labor camps. One of the last standing orders of the Japanese Imperial Army was to kill all Allied POWs. Even after Hirohito announced “the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage [to say the least]” and therefore “we have to suffer the insufferable [surrender],” a faction attempted a coup in an attempt to prolong the war.
Ironically, if those bombs had not been dropped, many A-bomb critics would not be alive today, because their forebears would have perished in the invasion.
Mean and senseless
As I have a zero tolerance for cruelty-by-action/words, it was quite shocking to see and hear about the abominable shooting of a horse that was just standing in the fenced property where it lived. There have been other incidents recently reported on the news of harmless animals being shot and/or harmed by mean, senseless individuals. Hopefully these people will be found, arrested, prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Anyone who witnesses or knows any form of abuse should report it before it escalates.
Cherie L. Appel