Thursday, February 18, 1999
In response to two items in the Feb. 4 edition of CW concerning airline service, I offer the following comments:
Last September I had the occasion to go to Colorado Springs on a vacation trip. The friend I was meeting there suggested that I fly rather than drive. So I started looking into the possibilities. First I stopped in at the Monterey Airport terminal and asked at each of the four airlines there. Three could get me there, for about $460 round-trip. These offered various round-about routes, one via Dallas!
So I checked with a travel agent. She found the same fares from Monterey, but showed me that by going from San Jose (on United, which was $460 from Monterey), I could go for $295 round-trip. Add to that the $55 for the (now no longer available) Airbus trip, which included leaving my car at their lot at the Marina Airport, I still made the trip for $110 less than if I flew from Monterey. If this is typical, is there any wonder that people are not using services from Monterey?
If we are going to retain services at the Monterey Airport, people will have to use it. We certainly will not use it if we have much cheaper options as close as San Jose.
We live in a suburb of Sacramento, four miles north of an increasingly busy cargo airport at Mather Field. When we drive down to Monterey and pay substantial amounts to stay at local accommodations, one of the "blessings" we look forward to is relative "peace and quiet." Prospects of expanding the number of noisy aircraft flights over the Monterey Peninsula area is extremely disheartening to us. A significant part of the beauty of the area is to be able to stand by the shore and hear just the birds and the wind in the trees. The intrusive howling roar of a jet or the droning whine of a propeller is a kind of acoustical graffiti that scars an essential element in the overall attractiveness of the Monterey Peninsula. How sad that the persistent machinations of commercial endeavor "wear away" the fragile veneer of such a magnificent area.
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIF.
Bring on the Jets?
Ah, yes--we do need more jets. I get giddy every time a jet passes low overhead for a landing, thundering like a God and spewing forth an aerial rain of toxic jet fuel. "Breathe deep," I say to my friends, "the next jet isn''t for another hour."
Sometimes one of those pesky environmentalists will pipe up about jet fuel polluting the atmosphere or the effect jet travel is having on global warming. I''ve even heard some raise the question of how many people die a year due to jet fuel inhalation alone! Luckily there are no studies on that one. The fools. Why can''t they just let us die? There''s too many of us anyway. Let''s party till we drop! We need more jets. We need more jet fuel. Keeps the economy going. We need bigger airports too, and more noise and more pollution and more business...More...More...More...Bring on the jets! I just hope the tourists don''t forget what they came here for.
High Moral Ground
I am grateful for the tenacity of individuals like Michelle Pisciotta-Masteller and Steve Bischoff. Pisciotta-Masteller''s Feb. 4 letter, "Disgusted and Offended," objected to your Jan. 21 "The City" cartoon depicting a three-year old''s sexual experience. Bischoff''s Dec. 17 Public Forum: >"Happiness Depressed Me," objected to your positive review of a movie featuring the rape of children. These CW readers join the many who''ve said that your material is at times unsuitable for a publication targeted at families (not an adults-only readership). Readers have protested "Red Meat" cartoons glorifying the abuse of children and animals, and a book excerpt depicting graphic sexual violence.
When readers raise such objections, there is inevitably a flurry of letters crying "censorship." It would be more accurate to identify censorship as refusing to allow publication and sales of such material anywhere (even in Monterey''s adult bookstores). What is instead being asked--that your weekly newspaper be suitable for all ages--isn''t censorship but a request for local media support of children''s health and safety, while also providing access to fun activities and important local news.
In your second decade here, I invite CW''s staff to reconsider present editorial policies. I would love to see the creative, independent journalism that serves our community so well further enhanced by your taking a strong stand against anything that could encourage or condone the exploitation of children. I believe that by CW setting new editorial standards on these so-called moral monitor issues, your reputation will be heightened in the minds of the vast majority of readers. In fact, since the Herald is sinking to new moral lows, your newspaper will have yet one more characteristic setting it apart and making it a true alternative for the Central Coast.
It is certainly a heartbreaking experience dealing with anyone who has at one time in their life or in a series of incidents been molested as a child. The heartache of that person could never be explained away and completely understood unless you yourself have ever been in that situation. In fact, this type of behavior, which is on the rise in our society, is immoral, illegal, and has hit the bottom of the cesspool of mankind.
Let me get to the point. I''m appalled in the lack of sense of dignity that the Coast Weekly has taken in running a cartoon depicting a three-year old in a sexual depiction with a "Tickle Me Elmo Doll." In the name of good sense what is the point of this cartoon ad. It is not funny depicting any child sexually or in any sexual act. I believe that this cartoon is in part adding to the desynthesizing >(sic) of America and your readers to the fact of a child in a sexual act.
Whatever happened to cartoonists that depicted good clean humor that struck a funny bone? This cartoon that you allowed to run was sickening. Perhaps your interest is the shock-jock type of behavior of a Howard Stern. What next? A child in a sexual relationship with an animal, then an adult? Unless your newspaper acknowledges publicly and in large type the lack of judgment and direction that your newspaper has taken, may it be the good sense of your advertisers to rethink doing business with your newspaper.
DENNIS KOFLER, PASTOR
LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH
Save Armstrong Ranch
The citizens of Marina are faced with an important decision that may determine the future character of the entire southern Monterey Bay area. The city is currently working toward approval of a general plan that will encourage the development of over 3,000 homes on Armstrong Ranch, the agricultural land bordering the city on the north adjacent to Hwy. 1. If approved, plans will be in place to build a continuous urban landscape stretching from the Salinas River to the Carmel River. Marina would add 20,000 new residents. This combined with plans for an ultimate build-out of Fort Ord at 70,000 residents and the present cities on the Peninsula will create an urban population of 200,000.
The city of Marina has the opportunity to show leadership by leading the way toward limiting growth. Marina 2020 Vision is a group of Marina residents working to convince the city to save Armstrong Ranch as open space at least until the year 2020. Marina 2020 Vision wants the city to focus its economic development activities on Fort Ord where thousands of abandoned buildings await demolition or rehabilitation.
Marina 2020 Vision needs your help. We urge all concerned Marina residents to attend our next meeting on Sunday, Feb. 21 at 6pm in the Marina City Council Chambers. We are working to preserve the small town character of Marina as well as the character of the entire southern Monterey Bay area. For more information please contact me at 384-5119.
He Doth Protest Too Much
Brian L. Burleson (Letters, Feb. 4) states that "abortion is not one of my main social concerns." Why, then, does he devote so much space to attacking it?
He makes sweeping generalizations like "most of the abortion lobby opposes the execution of convicted murderers," and "It''s mostly liberal females who kill their fetuses." How could he possibly know? How many abortion-rights supporters has he even asked about their opinion of capital punishment? How many abortion patients has he ever polled about their political affiliations?
Judging by the Burleson letter, I myself could make sweeping generalizations about abortion opponents whose concern for "life" begins at conception and ends at birth (witness the cavalier dismissal of Dr. Slepian''s murder), and who blame unwanted pregnancies on women alone. I do wish that the anti-abortion lobbyists would either admit that they hate women, or start telling men--especially those who whine about having to pay child support--to "use protection or have the self-control to keep your pants on."
PENELOPE L. ELLESWORTH
E-mail or Snail-mail Us
We encourage you to express your thoughts and reactions to our stories. We reserve the right to edit for space and/or libel. Please include your name, daytime phone number and the city in which you live. Write us:
By post: Letters, Coast Weekly, 668 Williams Ave., Seaside, CA 93955;
By fax: (831) 394-2909;
By email: email@example.com
You can also e-mail our staff and writers directly: