Who we are
and who we aren’t
To the Editor:
There is a lot of talk about who we are as Americans, and how we can make America better. However, I hear virtually nothing about who we aren’t and what we don’t want to be. Those questions were thoroughly discussed, and resolved, over 200 years ago. You can find it all with a 10-minute read of the Declaration of Independence.
The Declaration is mostly a listing of indictments against the English government and King George in particular. When I re-read the Declaration I was shocked, if not horrified, by the number of indictments that could be leveled against the America that we live in today. I was not at all surprised about who we wanted to be: A people who have the individual rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as well as having ”a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
If our government is as far from our declared intent as I think it is, then we, the people, can change that. We can start by insisting that our elected officials have “a decent respect to the opinion” of each other and the people they serve. If they did, after that we should insist they put loyalty to the nation before loyalty to their political party. Then I am sure the democracy that we pretend to have in this country would become the one that was envisioned in the very beginning.
Mitigated negative declaration
To the Editor:
I recently retired from a life spent in construction and shopping mall development, so thought I should become involved with the Sonora City Council to see if my experience would be of any help. This evening I realized they are not interested in listening to citizens. At a City Council meeting they voted to approve a “mitigated negative declaration,” or as I will call it an “Unmitigated Negative Disaster.” After years of meetings and public input, the Vision Sonora Committee came up with a plan for the Red Church intersection that approximately 40 citizens who attended and four of the four City Council members agreed was unworkable and needed major changes. Then in a page right out of “Through the Looking Glass,” the City Council voted to go ahead with this, saying in effect “ after many more meetings and public input we MAY come up with a better idea.”
We hear often about alternative facts; this evening at the Council Meeting I was involved in alternative reality.
Regulation makes sense
To the Editor:
The headline reads: To Ban or Regulate? Reminds me of our war on drugs, which, as everyone knows, has been a resounding success (obviously not).
So they’re considering continuing the ban, which has technically been in place all along to no discernible avail with associated costs of enforcement (not negligible) and perpetuating an often violent criminal underground industry.
Why wouldn’t you want to legalize and regulate cultivation of a product that’s already been approved by a state proposition vote and collect taxes? Doesn’t that make more sense?