During awards, where were other supervisors?
Tuesday evening, the very best of our community were honored at the Cultural Center as the Law Enforcement Administration of Del Norte County honored those who have gone beyond the point of just doing their jobs.
I was in the audience of several hundred as Pelican Bay, the California Highway Patrol, Probation, Search and Rescue, Sheriff’s Office and Crescent City Police Department were shown the community’s appreciation with the presentation of plaques.
I saw Mayor Rich Enea, City Council members Ron Gastineau, Rick Holley and Kathryn Murray, and City Manager Eugene Palazzo.
I noted there was only one representative from the county in attendance: Supervisor Roger Gitlin. Where were the other supervisors? Is this event so unimportant to them, they don’t even bother to show up?
I am embarrassed by the absence of most of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisors Martha McClure, David Finigan, Gerry Hemmingsen and Mike Sullivan, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Randy Christoffersen, Crescent City
Amazed at hypocrisy of local district attorney
Hypocrisy knows no limits. In these last few days before the Bar decides the fate, career-wise, of our local district attorney, I sit in absolute amazement of his hypocritical outlook.
Regionalization, rural population a lethal mix
I attended the meeting for the proposed regionalization of Sutter Coast hospital. I also read the story of the same meeting (“The doctor makes his case,” March 14). The meeting was hosted by Dr. Greg Duncan chief of medical staff at Sutter Coast Hospital. It was a very good meeting, very informative and well presented.
Nowhere in either venue was the impact on the local community residents mentioned. Del Norte County is composed of many small, isolated communities, 20 or more miles from Sutter Coast Hospital. In the event of a medical emergency, the first responders are the local volunteer fire department or the Yurok tribal emergency response team. If it is determined that further treatment is needed, an ambulance is called or the patient is transported by private auto.
Under regionalization, it’s possible there would fewer beds available for emergencies. If the beds were all in use, then the patient would have to be moved to another hospital. In our remote area, that would mean going east, north or south. All of the choices are 50 to hundreds of miles from Crescent City.
The expense of surface ambulance or air transport will be hundreds of dollars. This expense will fall on the patient or family of the patient. Most of our residents are on a fixed income and the expense will be overwhelming.
What is wrong with affirming gun rights?
In response to Richard Wendt’s March 12 letter, “More important issues than grandstanding vote,” I want to thank Supervisor Roger Gitlin for asking members of the Board of Supervisors to affirm their belief that the 2nd Amendment is important to assure American citizens have the right to own weapons without all the creative ways liberals are trying to impede our rights of ownership.
The question that comes to mind is: Since there is no harm in affirming this Amendment, why the hesitation? This “president” has no qualms in cherry-picking this amendment as the one to destroy.
Remember Fast and Furious? This “president” refuses to allow the investigation to follow a natural course to determine who is responsible for several thousand guns going from Arizona to Mexico, killing a Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans.
I understand each elected official took the oath to uphold the Constitution but that is a general oath. By specifying the 2nd Amendment the oath becomes specific and personal. Refusing to affirm this right may put into question how strongly Supervisor Martha McClure’s belief in ownership of guns by Americans may be.
Why this is grandstanding is beyond me. I have yet to see Supervisor Gitlin do any grandstanding. He has asked honest questions and is a breath of fresh air on the Board of Supervisors.
Marlowe Thompson, Crescent City
Tired of Dem-bashing; like dog park proposal
Since Americans do have the right to voice their opinions, here’s mine: I’m tired of Democrat-bashing.
Just because things aren’t changing quickly enough for some folks, and just because Edward Kennedy isn’t alive anymore, doesn’t mean that President Obama isn’t an intelligent, thoughtful human being doing much better than “Mitt” would’ve.
It’s awfully hard to change eight years of damage caused by that dolt, G.W. Bush.
People could succeed at overthrowing government
Supervisors, thanks for supporting our Second Amendment! (Board backs gun rights,” Feb. 28.) Supervisor Martha McClure apparently abstained, stating that it made no sense “cherry-picking amendments.”
Under normal circumstances I could agree with her, but looking at page A7 of the same newspaper reveals why it really does make sense: over a third of the entire page was filled with proposed California bills limiting guns and ammunition.
Additionally, many more similar bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and the president has threatened to use executive orders to achieve similar goals. Never before has the Second Amendment been under such intense attack.
Our freedoms, which limit governmental overreach, are based on four boxes.
First is the soapbox: Our freedom of speech, which enables us to influence the second box, the ballot box. If unjust laws are nonetheless enacted, the citizens may still prevail via the jury box, but if even that fails, our final line of defense against tyranny is the cartridge box.
Our Second Amendment makes us unique in the world. It’s the right that secures all other rights. Tyrannical governments often display the trappings of freedom such as constitutions and elections without actually being free since rights there are not secured. For obvious reasons, not a single tyrannical government allows its subjects to “keep and bear arms.”
Who decides when the government has gotten tyrannical enough to justify shooting its agents? The answer is clearly “we the people.” There is no way we can divest ourselves of this responsibility if indeed we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Build over ocean to solve Last Chance Grade issue
After reading the recent article about Caltrans finishing the latest round of repairs for the Last Chance Grade (“Highway’s trouble spot is costly,” March 5), I dug into my box of uncompleted letters to the editor and found one related to a similar Triplicate article from Feb. 14, 2009.
That article stated, “Officials are resigned to the fact that Last Chance Grade will fall into the ocean. They say it’s not a question of if it will happen, but when.”
Since moving here in 1985, I have made friends with many people that grew up here in the 1930s and ’40s. Several of these folks lost family members on both the old highway and the current one.
There were plans researched at one time for going deeper inland: What happened? Geology? Opposition Groups? My point, or question, is this: Please, will someone at Caltrans tell me if the obvious (to me) third option for dealing with the problems associated with the construction and maintenance of a highway through the unstable terrain between Crescent City and the Klamath area has been studied in the past and found to be unworkable or cost prohibitive.
If you can let your imagination run wild long enough, imagine a structure similar to the harbor breakwater, running between the south end of South Beach and the lagoon area just north of Trees of Mystery. Yes, out in the ocean. Imagine that this structure is more than 50 feet above sea level (30 feet higher than the harbor breakwater), running roughly parallel to the beach (500-1,000 feet off shore, making maybe a thousand acres of salt marsh/wetlands) and wide enough for two lanes in each direction, a center median, and utility right-of-ways.
If your mind is still open, the material needed for this project might be found either close by (bluffs) or from straightening out Highway 199 (literally move the mountain, in pieces of course).
Aim is to make country safer, not take rights
I watched the Feb. 26 supervisors meeting where our Board chose to pass a resolution supporting and upholding the Second Amendment. I am unclear what this resolution accomplished because no one has taken away your Second Amendment rights nor will anyone take them away. It seemed redundant to me to even bring up a resolution like this.
The folks who spoke at the meeting, except for the first gentleman and Supervisor Martha McClure, are missing the point of what the government is trying to do with the new gun control laws. It is not trying to take away your Second Amendment rights; it is trying to make this country safer and possibly prevent more horrific mass killings.
Mrs. McClure’s example of the banning of tommy guns was excellent. These guns were being used by the mafia to kill citizens instead of using them to kill rodents, which was their original intent when they were given to farmers after the war. Thus, when they were repurposed to kill citizens, they were banned by the federal government. Who could be against banning the use of these guns in our civilized society?
That is what our government is attempting to do: Remove the dangerous, unnecessary weapons from society and keep them out of the hands of unbalanced individuals who should not have access to firearms of any kind.
Another individual at the meeting brought up drunk driving and how successful the campaign to stop drunk driving has been. He said one individual changed the laws for this heinous crime. Now look how many lives have been saved!
Maybe, by having universal background checks or changing the availability of rifles only necessary during war, we could save lives, too. The purpose of such actions is not to take away your Second Amendment rights, but to protect the right of all citizens to remain unharmed in public places. That is the goal here.
Does anyone other than Sutter execs want this?
I would like to thank our local hospital board for its three separate votes in favor of regionalization, and its consideration of cutting the hospital in half to qualify for higher Medicare reimbursement under the Critical Access program.
You have done what has been considered impossible. You have united the Tea Party with the Democratic Party. The Independents and Republicans are on board too. You have united liberals with conservatives, city government with county government, and lawyers with doctors. Young people and senior citizens also see this the same. You have united Oregon government officials with California government officials, Curry County residents with Del Norte County residents. Our local Board of Supervisors is also united.
The creative talents of all the above are now working together to overturn your decision on regionalization, and block the move to Critical Access.
You cannot answer the simple question of how Critical Access will improve health care in Del Norte and Curry counties.
If you were to talk to Asante about running the hospital, instead of Sutter Health, there would be a shout of joy that would carry from here to Sacramento to Salem, Ore.
Please consider Asante. Sutter Health has lost all trust with the local community. Ask your neighbors and people that visit your business their opinion.
If anyone reading this letter wants to have a say in this issue, share your opinions with the local board members. Critical Access would reduce our hospital from 49 beds to a maximum of 25 beds, resulting in a loss of hospital employees and a large number of patient transfers — mostly by air — to other hospitals.
Does anyone other than Sutter executives want this?
Jim Buckles, Crescent City
Democrats grease palms of rich even more than GOP
Your chosen cartoon for the Feb. 28 edition was disgusting! Cartoons should be to poke fun/make a political point, but you have chosen, instead, to toe the Obama line and paint Republicans as only interested in the “rich” at the expense of the rest of us.
You know this is blatantly false, and you know that the Democrats grease the palms of the “rich” probably even more, as evidenced by the last election.
Let’s show a little class and get down to the truths of what we must do to save this nation. Politics ad infinitum just won’t do it.
God bless America and whatever great leaders may be still in hiding. Let’s get positive and find solutions!
Lilyan Wood, Crescent City
Lack of judgment in letting accused officer work
I recently heard from a friend of mine in county government that the chief probation officer has returned to his work, despite being charged with embezzling law enforcement training funds to fund a gambling habit (“Still a defendant, official reinstated”).
It shows an amazing lack of good judgment on the part of the Board of Supervisors. If he is convicted, the issue may be admissible in any case in which he is called as a law enforcement witness, because embezzlement is a crime of moral turpitude. It shows a lack of honesty and trustworthiness.
It is fine to be on administrative leave until the case reaches a verdict, but it undermines confidence in the justice system to reinstate him to his duties, and Supervisor Hemmingsen’s comment that it’s just like getting a speeding ticket is ridiculous.
Lathe Gill, Santa Rosa
Reflection on Board vote to support 2nd Amedment
Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Supervisors featuring Supervisor Roger Gitlin’s Resolution No. 2013, the solicitation of official Del Norte County support for the 2nd Amendment, evoked memories of recent local “Save Our Hospital” rallies wherein local citizens have rallied in large numbers to a perceived threat to a highly valued aspect of our community consciousness.
Attendance was standing-room-only as speakers queued up to the podium to share their impassioned support of the resolution to preserve our rights to bear arms, as propounded by the 2nd Amendment.
The lone dissenter questioned the necessity and advisability of the resolution by poking Mr. Gitlin in the eye with his implied suggestion that it was conceived as a political tool to be used against any of Supervisor Gitlin’s opponents, whomever that might be. That implication in itself, relying as it does solely on conjecture and convoluted logic, seems to me to be an attempt to blunt the effect of the resolution and an affront to Supervisor Gitlin.
Supervisor Martha McClure’s admission of being a member of the American gun culture by stating she has the dreaded G-things herself is somewhat akin to Sen. Feinstein’s recent admission to having possessed a CWC at one time herself. That seems a frail effort to present a much broader view than us ordinary gun-toters in that they have a broader perspective of it all by at once being one of us while owning the broader view of seeing the need for ever- tighter controls.
Supervisor McClure’s wriggling out of the position of simply taking a forthright position of support for the 2nd Amendment by claiming such action constitutes “cherry-picking” the amendments is paper thin and her position on the fence advisedly unstable; remember Humpty Dumpty sat atop a wall.