Measure N a Pyrrhic victory for big soda
On Election Day, I stood a legal distance from a polling place handing out cards urging a vote for Measure N. I have ardently supported Jeff Ritterman and Measure N from day one.
Across the entrance from the polling place, a few feet from us, was a small group of people with "No on Measure N" signs -- also a big picture of President Barack Obama, which gave a misleading impression that he, too, was against the measure. We did think of going to get an Obama picture also, but we were busy. A neighbor of mine, standing with me, went over to our opponents and chatted them up.
"Are you being paid for your work?" she asked. They said they were. She didn't push the issue further. Robert Rogers told us in his Nov. 8 Times front-page article the amount was $12. That's a sweet deal, and it's not nothing, even for Big Sugar. We "Yes-on-Measure N" folks just had our passion and convictions for a healthy citizenry.
Councilman Ritterman is right: It's a Pyrrhic victory for Big Sugar and Tom Barnidge has his analogies crooked.
Why weren't we warned of Obama's 'plans?'
Like most Americans, I voted for Barack Obama.
But when I read about the president's "plans to destroy the U.S." in your Nov. 10 Saturday Forum, I became concerned.
I look to the Times to keep readers informed of such nefarious plans. Mostly, you do an excellent job, but in this instance, you failed to be an effective government watchdog.
The time to tell us about these things is before we go to the polls, not after. You shouldn't leave it to a letter-writer to expose government corruption. In fairness, no other news agency I'm aware of warned of these plans either.
The truth even seems to have eluded Mitt Romney, who managed to stay informed of Obama's other plans, like shipping Jeep production to China.
Maybe if you launch a crusade against these plans now, we could stop Obama from destroying our country before it's too late.
Cartoons show both sides of the argument
It is very interesting that some viewers will only complain about only one side of an issue, i.e. Mr. Barrilleaux's letter condemning the comic strip Mallard Filmore.
He did not call for the removal of the outspoken Doonesbury which has made fun of Republicans and former President George W. Bush for the past 10 years. Now that Mallard Filmore makes equally outrageous comments against President Barack Obama and the Democrats, he thinks it should be removed from the paper.
Equal ridiculing is fair, but eliminate one and both need to go. Both of these comics provoke thinking about the topics they make fun of. If you don't want to think, or can only see one side of an argument, don't read the paper.
Sowell's commentary right on the mark
I totally disagree with Sharyn Obrigewitsch and Bruce Reeves regarding articles written by Thomas Sowell in your paper. Sowell, the distinguished Fellow from Stanford, has been right on mark with his political commentary.
In fact, he provides the only political information in your paper that makes it worth my subscription. Perhaps, if more people could "understand" the truth in Sowell's writings, we would not have re-elected the worst president of my lifetime.
Since his election in 2008, unemployment is up, gas is twice as expensive, our economy is in free fall, the largest tax increase ever foisted upon the American people (Obamacare) was installed taking billions out of Medicare. Who will Obama blame for the next four years?
With Obama, the decline of America will not just continue, it will accelerate. Please note what the market did the day after the election and the number of businesses in our once great country that will not be adding employees anytime soon. Socialism is here and some people just don't get it.