Readers’ comments: March 3, 2023
Scripps rebuttal does not sit well
Does the Claremont Colleges Services think its trite “go pound sand” rebuttal [“Opinion: Scripps medical decisions made absent evidence,” Feb. 24] excuses it from typical non-thinking “just following orders” Covid policy?
Sadly, the senior physician presiding over all of Scripps Health Services apparently is not confident enough in his/her position to make a judgment call to stray from policy for the benefit of a patient.
Students now have a shining example of what “practicing until I get it right” looks like and they will hopefully advocate and vote us all away from so-called experts wrapped up in politics, power, or laziness.
Bicycling safety on Arrow Highway: opinions vary
I thank Mr. Scott Banks for his reply to my recent letter [“Readers comments: February 24, 2023”]. I will not, however, reply disingenuously, as he did, that he “… seems to regard his own feelings as sufficient to settle the matter for everyone.”
In his reply, Mr. Banks stated he feels unsafe bicycling west along Arrow Highway. This begs the question, of course, why then does he not find an alternate route? Or does Mr. Banks expect all of the rest us to foot the bill for huge infrastructure changes just to suit his personal preference in routes?
In any case, I decided to test out Mr. Banks’ Arrow Highway route for myself. What I discovered was that I could re-trace it without feeling ill at ease. Is Arrow Highway busy? Yes, of course it is; it’s a major thoroughfare.
Nevertheless, if Mr. Banks feels genuinely unsafe on Arrow Highway, and he is also unable to locate a more agreeable alternate route, well, perhaps bicycling around urban areas is just not his forte, at least not on more challenging roads.
After all, we all have our particular skills and limitations. I, for example, would never attempt to be a roofer. Nor would I compete in the Barstow to Las Vegas off-road motorcycle race. Those just aren’t in my skill set.
Rhodes went too far in special election column
In your “Going There” column in the Courier edition of February 24 [“The $273,000 temper tantrum, ‘Stormwatch 2023,’ and Cash goes national”] you are highly critical of the likely success of petitioners exercising the provisions of the election code to call for a special election to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Llanusa, who resigned from the Claremont Unified School District’s Board of Education. You call it a “shame,” a “waste,” and a “$273,000 tantrum.” I infer a somewhat pejorative bias on your part in referring to Joshua Rogers, who played a key role in gathering signature for the special election petition and “…his acolytes” in their gathering of 118 petition signatures.
Certainly the board of education was within its proper authority and rights when it appointed someone to fill Mr. Llanusa’s term. However, just as certainly, Mr. Rogers and the others who signed the special election petition are within their rights and the terms of the code in demanding the election. You would rather avoid the cost of a special election, preferring that the board of education have the money that will have to be spent to hold the special election to spend on whatever it sees fit to advance the mission of the district, and Mr. Rogers and his fellow petitioners would rather place priority on electing the members of the board, not appointing them.
Holding a strong opinion on this matter as you do, does not, in my opinion, include the right to cast aspersions on those who disagree with your point of view, especially when they are exercising rights afforded them within the law.