Current Date

Subscribe / Renew

Donate

Claremont Courier - A Local Nonprofit Newsroom

Readers comments 12-18-15

Anonymous city

Dear Editor:

On December 11, the city’s automatic emergency calling program called me with the information about the Indian Hill Boulevard closure. It’s a pretty nifty system, but I didn’t get the message right away. Why? Because the caller ID was “unknown.”

I get enough junk calls that I only pick up when I recognize the number or name, so I didn’t pick this up. In the past, such calls had “City of Claremont” (or something like that). Seems like having anonymous “emergency” messages is somewhat counter-productive.

Jon Vavrus

Claremont

 

Pay to play

Dear Editor:

A letter to the editor in the December 11 edition of the COURIER requests that the Claremont Wilderness Park receive more “sustainable funding” from the citizens of the city of Claremont. 

As a resident living in close proximity to the park, I take issue with this. The author of the letter admits that 83 percent of the park visitors are not Claremont residents. I believe the users of the park should provide most if not all of the funding to maintain the park. In this way, the park would receive a sustainable amount of funding which is in direct proportionality to its usage and the money would come from those persons who are benefiting from it. 

This park, unlike the others in Claremont, is supposed to be a “Wilderness Park” and the maintenance dollars should go towards keeping it in a condition synonymous with its name. The maintenance dollars should also be used to contain the deleterious side effects of the usage of the park to the previously peaceful surrounding residential areas. 

As a resident who has been negatively impacted by the increased traffic, noise and parking issues created by the increased usage of the park over the past few years, I am not in favor of raising my already hefty taxes to invite more bedlam.

Kris Meyer

Claremont

 

UN is key ally in fight against climate change

Dear Editor:

This month, world leaders are gathering in Paris for a landmark convening to complete a new global climate agreement—an extraordinary opportunity for the international community to rise to meet the threat of climate change.

From Paris to our own city of Claremont, we have a responsibility to encourage our local, state and national leaders to take bold action that measurably reduces the worst contributors to and impacts of climate change.

I am proud to be part of the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA), a grassroots organization of more than 20,000 members that works to support and advance the work of the United Nations.

Taking action on climate change is one of the principle goals of the UN. By working with the UN to end climate change, both citizens and leaders can take a concrete step to secure a prosperous and sustainable future.

There is no time to lose in reversing the worst impacts of climate change. We should support the UN as a key ally in this fight.

Mel Boynton

Chapter president

Pomona Valley UNA-USA

 

Voldemort

Dear Editor:

In the Harry Potter book series, wizards are either good or evil. Of the evil wizards, the head honcho, Voldemort, is by far the most vile and malicious of all.  He is so feared by the good wizards, old and young alike, that they even avoid saying his name, preferring to refer to him as “he who should not be named.” The one wizard who does call him by name is Harry Potter, who unflinchingly confronts Voldemort and battles him at every turn and finally destroys him. At least Harry realized you can’t defeat an evil-doer if you are so afraid of him that you can’t even utter his name.

For many liberals, however, the name Voldemort in the wizarding world is analogous to the term radical Islamic terrorists in our muggle world.

Many noteworthy liberals today, including President Obama and Hillary Clinton, have gone to great lengths to avoid calling these terrorists exactly what they are largely out of fear, on the one had, and as a salute to political correctness on the other.

Ms. Clinton recently claimed the use of these terms, “helps to create this clash of civilizations.” Clearly, we are not at war with Muslim civilization; we are at war with an uncivilized, violent sector of Islamic states. Uncivilized terrorists are, by definition, not civilized, nor do they advance the goals of any civilized nation.

Most Americans are not stupid. As a nation, we are not being attacked by Death Eaters, Hippogriffs or Cornish Pixies; we are being murdered by radical Islamic terrorists and not calling them that is patently foolish. I think it is especially offensive to the responsible majority of American Muslims who are not radical terrorists. Let us at least call these terrorists radical Islamist terrorists and not “they who cannot be named.”

Instead of mimicking the characters in the Harry Potter series, it is the responsibility of real-life leaders like Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton to educate American citizens as to the difference between the legitimate practices of Islam and the violent behavior of radical Islamic terrorists.

Michael Valentine

Claremont

 

Abolish the death penalty

Dear Editor:

For the last decade, California has not made use of the death penalty: no executions. The State CDCR has just proposed new lethal injection regulations in an attempt to bring back the death penalty. These new rules will leave the state with more uncertainty in a system that is deeply flawed. They create the possibility of botched executions due to untried methods and a failure to assess the huge cost of the death penalty to the state.

The state is required to listen and respond to your concerns about its execution proposals. If you speak up, then you will play a direct role in the outcome. Tell the CDCR you oppose these new, fundamentally-flawed proposals for killing prisoners.

The League of Women Voters supports abolition of the death penalty. We support measures which limit rather than increase the use of the death penalty. 

Among the reasons we oppose injections to put people to death are:

(1) There is no procedure for addressing botched executions.

2) The regulations name two drugs (amobarbital and secobarbital) that have never been used in lethal injection. If the CDCR is going to resume executions, the methods used must be well researched and fully understood.

3) The CDCR has not performed an adequate economic impact assessment. In proposing these regulations, they have failed to account for all of the associated costs. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates costs associated with the death penalty to be $150 million annually.

We have read about how through the use of DNA, we can more scientifically determine who committed the crime—many times, this has meant release from prison people wrongfully accused and sentenced.

If you agree that we should not put anyone to death, please let the committee know. Write to CDCR, Regulation and Policy Management Branch, PO Box 942883, Sacramento, CA 94283 or email LI.comments@cdcr.ca.gov.

In conclusion, please join the League of Women Voters and other organizations in supporting the elimination of the death penalty in California and oppose implementing the proposed regulations on lethal injection as drafted.

Ellen Taylor

Vice president of advocacy

League of Women Voters of the Claremont Area

 

 

 

Share This