To the Editor:
Although I recently had to move away due to medical reasons, I am still a Tuolumne County taxpayer on the real estate I own. Tuolumne County is near and dear to me to be sure, and I continue to encourage residents there.
For many years I have tried to encourage those incarcerated in jails, rehabs, and prisons. Of the numerous young men and women to whom I have sent cards of encouragement in such institutions, not one has rejected cards except the Tuolumne County jail in Sonora.
The main signs on our state prisons emphasize not only "correction" but "rehabilitation." If even our state prisons accept and encourage such communications as they see the importance of rehabilitation, I just don't understand why Tuolumne County jail has adopted such a radical mean-spirited policy of no cards or copied stories of inspiration and encouragement.
A recent card of encouragement sent to an inmate in the jail was returned stamped in bold black letters, "no cards." Here it is the Christmas season, when the yuletide spirit of love and giving is shared. Yet Tuolumne County inmates are not even allowed cards, and we citizens are locked up, too, in our freedom to encourage in the spirit of rehabilitation.
May I wish each and everyone a happy holiday season!
To the editor:
What could our Board of Supervisors be thinking? This act of adding more county employees to the ridiculously lucrative retirement benefits that law enforcement presently enjoys makes no sense whatsoever!
It flies in the face of the advice of the financial experts who have studied these plans. Further, in these economic times it just simply defies logic.
We are told they had some kind of agreement in the past to do this. Maybe, that's so, and perhaps times were different, but they have chosen a ridiculous time to do this. And, if that is so, what happened to their covenant with the people of this county that they have pledged to protect and serve? This act of folly was unanimous! This just boggles my mind. Can you spell Vallejo? Doesn't anyone read the newspapers?
The same thing is happening at the state level, and no one has shown any propensity to do anything about that, except the present governor at one time, and he failed.
The S.F. Chronicle recently had an article about former Gov. Davis's visit to Pennsylvania. He said he was shocked at how well their state government worked; its budget was balanced, they even had a surplus, and decent services were provided.
The pension system they have for their public employees is pretty much in line with what is normal for the rest of the country. Why isn't this obvious to those who are currently making these decisions for us?
We're in a heap of trouble folks. Where else can one possibly retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their present salary? Just unbelievable....
There is a solution, and there is not enough space left in this letter to get into it in depth, but briefly it has to do with recognizing the problem, and having elected officials who have the courage to suggest a different tier for new hires.
The public would be advised not to hold their breath until this happens!
To the editor:
Domenic Torchia (letter, Dec. 10) implies that those of us who voted for Proposition 8 are guilty of legislating discrimination into law, and it's therefore unconstitutional. This is the current sound bite from the homosexual community, but, of course, it's simply not true.
Discrimination would be if certain rights were granted to one group of people, but denied to others.
But it is not discrimination when the same rules apply to everyone. I can't, for example, marry my best male friend in order to provide him with medical benefits, pension coverage, etc. - no matter how much I "love him." Nor can I marry another man's wife again, no matter how much I may "love her.' This is no more ridiculous than stating that two men, or two women, can constitute a marriage.
The same rules apply to all of us, straight people and homosexuals. There is zero discrimination.
I'm not going to quote religious scriptures, or church dogma, but am only going to state what is simply common sense: Marriage is only between a man and a woman. It can not be anything else.
No matter what type of state license is issued or ceremony is performed. No matter what the homosexual community and its supporters claim, it never will be. Anything other than the union of a man and a woman into something called "marriage" is a hoax, and a mockery of that institution.
And a quick response to Claudia Carlson (letter, Dec. 22): Yes, we all see how tolerant the No on Prop 8 supporters are. It can be observed by counting the number of broken windows at Sonora's St. James Church.
To the editor:
A blanket pardon would be the ultimate crime of an administration that has been rife with acts deserving impeachment.
This country is no longer ruled by a government of the people, for the people or by the people. We are being ruled by the elite and for the elite, as has been demonstrated time and again in everything that has been done. Time to clean house, folks!