Let majority rule, unless it's wrong
Ruth Fontana is right. In her Nov. 30 letter ("Voters made a mistake on GMO foods issue"), she stated that voters did not study the issue and allowed Monsanto and others to sway your votes. So apparently, if you do not agree with Ruth you are an uninformed buffoon. Because if you would have taken the time to watch the video online, as she had instructed you to do, you would be better informed. Because everything online is true and in no way made to sway your opinion in one way or the other. I did vote for the proposition but somehow I lack the willingness to call my fellow voters idiots for not voting the way I did. I am happy to find that there are people like Ruth to point out how wrong they are. Fortunately she would not be the only one or presumably the last.
For instance on the same day there was a letter from Yan Pawlak telling anyone who wants to be a volunteer firefighter that they are also not very smart and need to be educated by the more highly intelligent people in our society. Who knew that the volunteers were doing all the cleaning all the while the "firefighters" were napping, watching TV and God knows what for 22 hours a day as Yan so eloquently pointed out? The volunteer I know has never told me about this. In fact I was going to join him but now that I am better informed I would be as crazy as him. Thank you, Yan.
Fear not, my brothers and sisters -- remember that even if the Neanderthals win we can, (like the same-sex marriage propositions or even something as trivial as the presidency) take it to the Supreme Court and be darned with majority rule. We can force it down their throat just like our forefathers wanted it. So keep it up because people just are not smart enough without someone to point it out to them.
It's time to move on from the Bush years
Folks still seem to be stuck on George W. Bush. Do they realize how ridiculous it is after all this time to try to deflect attention from today's sorry state of affairs by blaming Bush? We're talking Obama now folks. Bush is gone to Texas, where freedom still reigns mostly.
Stuart Shicoff insists Bush lied and therefore we shouldn't be so hard on poor President Obama just because he did, too. Note to Stuart: I defy you to prove here in the paper or anywhere that Bush lied. Show us the PROOF, Stuart. Hint to Stuart: it doesn't exist because that whole notion (Bush lying) was in fact a Democrat lie
On the other hand there is so much proof of the current president's affinity for lying that even Stuart can't deny it. But heck, as the left would have us believe, I'm sure Bush made Obama lie and probably Stuart, too.
On another note, here's a shout out to the baker's union for the wonderful work their greedy leadership did saving those 18,000 jobs at Hostess. Three cheers for another case of union uselessness. The only good thing to come out of their efforts is that they now won't be able to undeservedly steal union dues from those same 18000 workers. Maybe those folks will get lucky and find nonunion jobs.
And for Moonbeam's misguided minions, I have two tickets for the inaugural ride on the high-speed train coming soon to nowhere near you. I'll let them go for cheap. You can have them for free in fact, if you take Moonbeam with you to wherever in nowhere this boondoggle ends up.
Michael K. Hurder
Democrats voted to attack Iraq, as well
Prevarications repeated assiduously tend to be accepted as fact.
Case in point, letter writer Stuart Shicoff's (Dec. 4) impeachment defense for President Obama based on the oft-repeated theory Bush Lied! This is even though President Clinton signed and the House passed (360-38) the 1999 Iraq Liberation Act that authorized the use of force and regime change in Iraq, and later Sens Clinton, Feinstein, Biden, Daschle, Dodd and, to add a bit of local flavor, House Rep. Ellen Tauscher et al, voted to attack Iraq!
Yet it is the allegedly conniving and deceitful Bush who was able to convince seemingly very intelligent people to go along with the purported fraud of the American public.
Wrong call made on photo for yearbook
The survey question is misleading. The student met the dress requirement! Koos wore the tux.
Principal Hasen essentially stated that Koos met dress code by his statement that "If it was how he ordinarily looked, I would not have a problem with it ..." In addition, he is clean-shaven and his hair is groomed in picture.
I suspect that a high percentage of students are rarely seen with the hair and facial grooming of their yearbook photo. Was any other student denied the use of their photo?
Both my sons graduated from Amador. One with hair below the shoulder and the other short. Our long-haired son has served more than 10 years in the U.S. Army.
Free expression should be encouraged!
Education should be seen as valuable
Interesting juxtaposition of two articles in your Dec. 4 publication -- high unemployment rate of young people and Warriors' player Jarrett Jack's collection of 1,500 athletic shoes.
The connection? The value system of both. Education has no value for many groups of people. Being an NBA player, however, does. And so many think that that's what they're going to be, so they don't need to go to school. Your paper doesn't help by glorifying this on its front page, no less.
Of course, there's more to it than that. I applaud Children Now for trying to help develop basic skills, including how to dress appropriately, in young people; but, honestly, this should start with the very young. By the time they're teenagers, it's oftentimes too late. And everybody loses. To perhaps place more value on education, we should start with a strict dress code, for the staff also, from first grade on to instill respect for school and education in general. Couldn't hurt.
Judging mental competence
Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun. No!
Is a person who is a week late on the last payment of $50 on a $400 item incompetent? No. Just what are the parameters to judge if a person is incompetent? Let's see now, I do know a group of educated people we could use to show what the parameters could be or not be. Who is this group of knowledgeable people? Why, none other than our representatives in Washington, D.C. They do not work together and do not work for the American people. That means they are incompetent. So how can they set any parameters if our vets are financially incompetent or not? They sure have put the USA on the edge of the financial cliff of another recession.
Peter M. Esse