Ellen Taylor’s ivory tower

Dear Editor:

While Ms. Ellen Taylor parroted all the left-wing talking points on gun control, what she failed to address is why she wants all of us to trade our freedom for her belief in the government somehow making us safer, which, by the way, our government is not directly responsible for (check it out).

According to the latest Department of Justice memo, from a government standpoint, nothing short of total firearm confiscation will have any significant effect in reducing the risk of unlawful use of firearms in our society.

So where is she going with this, if everything she wants is actually ineffective? What other rights is she willing to abrogate just a little at a time? Religion? Voting? Speech? Assembly?

We already know that Ms. Taylor wants the use of your private property to be highly regulated (the supposed “gun show loophole.”) Why doesn’t she fight for all rights instead of just the ones she likes?

Furthermore, why is it that she expects “good guys” to give up their rights in the hope that the bad guys will follow her lead into an ivory tower utopia? While I don’t remember her mentioning any polls about what the bad guys wanted, I can only assume that she has their best interest at heart. Has she checked?

Before and during the revolution, when the government tried to disarm the “good guys,” only about one-third of our citizens were actually behind the start of this new country. Most, like Ms. Taylor, wanted the monarchy to keep control of their lives, even though they didn’t like the conditions.

It is sad to see a continuation of that “head in the sand” lack of foresight, courage and trust in her fellow man.

Leslie Watkins

Claremont

Save San Antonio High

Dear Editor:

I oppose the recent proposal to relocate the Claremont Unified School District’s Service Center to its San Antonio High School campus.

The one-time benefit from selling the current property that the Service Center occupies on Base Line does not offset the long-term diminishment of valuable open space at this school site. 

Once sold, the continuation school will have less land for a variety of educational endeavors including, but not limited to, athletic events and gardening for now and future generations of kids.

Although the influx of funds from selling “surplus” properties is an enticing prospect, the truth is that the money generated will not solve Claremont schools ‘long-term budgetary problems, and once one parcel of property is sold and another built on, this decision cannot be reversed. 

Many of us experienced that frustration in earlier decades when the land between the Old High School on Foothill Boulevard and the current high school was sold off for “surplus.” Later, when the district wanted to build a stadium, their efforts were made more difficult because there was barely enough land to realize this dream.

In a town that values education and sustainability, I urge the community to work with the school board to find other solutions besides compromising the campus of our alternative high school.

Pamela Nagler

Claremont

Hartnett is a hoot

Dear Editor:

Let me start off by saying that I am an outsider. I was born and raised in Pomona for 20 years, moved to Chino for 24 years and now live in Rancho Cucamonga. I am a newspaper junkie and read the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and Los Angeles Times every day, cover to cover.

For the last 10 years, my wife has brought home the COURIER since she works in the People’s Rebublic of Claremont and her boss is a subscriber. I admire the Claremont residents’ pride and loyalty to their city, even some of their “lefty” opinions.

But the thing I admire most about the COURIER is Beth Hartnett’s witty and accurate descriptions of stupid criminals in the Police Blotter. My favorite local journalist, David Allen of the Daily Bulletin, is a hoot when it comes to wit and satire, but Beth is a very strong competitor. So “thank you” Beth for your insights, and to the COURIER for its honesty and commitment to the newspaper industry.

Bob Terry

Rancho Cucamonga