Thursday, January 29, 2004
Squid’s Questionable Taste
About the only thing we can say about remotely pleasant squids is, to borrow words from a great poet, “We’d rather see than be one.” Or eat one, for that matter.
But we do like to read the Weekly’s literate one, who usually makes a lot of sense.
Nevertheless, we’re afraid she’s let a bit of professional jealousy tempt her (Milton, where art thou when the weak are in need—still brooding over a Paradise lost?) into attacking the editorial editor of the Monterey County Herald for suggesting some interesting topics for [letter-]writers to consider [Squid, Jan. 22-28].
For example, we’d like to know what people think about movie stars getting into politics. We know what we think and a few others think. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if 1,000 or so people wrote in, maybe prompting a poll by CNN, CBS, et al? We’d probably disagree with the results.
All citizens regardless of professions, should be encouraged into political debate.
Squid: be curiouser and curiouser! The majority could exclude you.
Calvin and Margaret Rich | Pacific Grove
The Fox-and-Henhouse Rule
I had two experiences this week, which tell me that the voters in this county, myself included, need to “wake up and smell the coffee.” First we have supervisor candidate, Steve Collins, who just moved into the Fifth District, who told a radio audience last Tuesday, with a straight face, that although he is getting huge funding from Salinas agriculture and development interests he would be able to cast an independent vote if elected.
“I am going to spend whatever it takes to get elected,” he said.
Then we have Larry Foy, former general manager of Cal Am, trying to repeal the disclosure rules on secret contacts with board members as one of his first orders of business saying, “You can’t put people through these inconveniences.” It is a disclosure rule Larry; if you have secret meetings, we just want you to disclose them. Voters may be busy, but we are not stupid.
Manny P. Kaligh | Monterey
Sticks, Stones and Assault Rifles
Talma Taormina’s January 22 letter demonstrates the anti-guns lobby’s total failure to accept reality [Letters, Jan. 22-28]. Taormina snivels about the coming expiration of the “assault weapons” ban, claiming the ban applied to military assault weapons. Military assault weapons are fully automatic and were already heavily regulated. The guns that were banned were semi-automatic weapons which only fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.
Taormina claims the ban has no impact on responsible gun owners or hunters. She also goes on to claim gun control does not ban all guns and only makes it harder for criminals to obtain guns. Anyone claiming the ultimate goal of the gun control lobby is not to ban guns is either a fool or a liar. People who claim gun laws make it harder for criminals to get guns are even bigger fools.
A Centers for Disease Control committee reported it could find no evidence gun control laws reduce crime. A 1997 study mandated by Congress showed the firearms banned under the “assault weapon” law were never involved in more than a fraction (around 1 percent) of gun murders. More people were killed by knives, clubs and bare hands than by “assault weapons.”
Brian L. Burleson | Seaside