Don’t overheat dogs
Here we go again. How many times do we humans need to be reminded that you cannot leave your dog in a car on a hot day? Even with the window cracked, on a 90-degree day the interior of your car can reach 160 degrees in less than 10 minutes.
You wouldn’t sit in your car, in Paso Robles, on a hot day for any amount of time, let alone with a fur suit on. How can you expect your dog to?
If you love your dog as much as you claim to, do it a favor and leave it at home.
We need a tie
Imagine, for a minute, that both Congress and the president were, the majority of the time, Republican.
Environmentally speaking, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would become increasingly weaker and unable to enforce regulations on industry. This would be the definition of heaven for Koch Industries Inc.
Eventually, the country’s land, waterways and shorelines would become a giant cesspool. The population at large would get sicker from the increased pollution, and without a comprehensive healthcare program, the taxpayer would pay the bill.
Imagine now that both Congress and the president were, the majority of the time, Democrat.
Environmentally speaking, the EPA would become more and more powerful with new regulations and stiff fines for noncompliant industries. Even though this increased environmental regulation would be beneficial to the nation’s quality of life, the cost of it would be passed on to the consumer and many products that are reasonably priced would become more expensive.
Several industries that can would leave the country and set up shop in countries where environmental regulations are either more relaxed or nonexistent altogether.
A negative effect would be job losses in this country.
My point is that I believe that in order to have a responsible government able to move the country forward, and at the same time allow our economic system to innovate and thrive, we need a tie. I am hoping that we will get it with an increasingly more powerful independent movement and ever growing voter participation in the political process.
In her letter published June 20, Ms. Linda Seely recommends beginning a decommissioning process for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant because no seismic study can guarantee that the plant will withstand “the greatest calamity that Mother Nature can produce.”
I have three questions:
1. Just what is the “greatest calamity”? Science cannot define it, other than with probabilities that cannot yield absolute answers.
2. Whatever it is, would not the “greatest calamity” level most every structure in lower San Luis Obispo County, causing horrendous injury, death and devastation? Should we all move away, regardless of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant?
3. What funding sources does Ms. Seely contemplate? Surely, not Pacifc Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) that would be bankrupt. Surely, not PG&E ratepayers, most of whom are voters who demonstrably refuse to pay for services they demand. Surely, not governments already facing virtual bankruptcy.
Please, can’t we all get real, urging prompt performance of the seismic studies underway and ensuring professional and timely fulfillment of their regulatory duties by the NRC and related entities?
Based on probabilities, any San Luis Obispo County resident fearing injury or death should avoid U.S. Highway 101 immediately.
In Bob Cuddy’s article “Blakeslee postpones fundraiser” (June 17) he quotes from an email sent to Central Coast State Senator Sam Blakeslee from San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill.
After reading the quotes from Hill, I realized that he was painting an entire group and every member with the same broad brush by using inflammatory rhetoric. Using Hill’s own language, isn’t that the same approach a “racist” might use? If Hill can’t win a discussion with sound logic and intelligent dialogue without resorting to name calling and innuendos, then he needs to find another line of work. The voters from his district should demand that he immediately apologize for his vitriolic words.
Just a side note, I am not a rancher, do not belong to the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, do not know Mr. Caldwell or any other member of COLAB, and have never listened to Caldwell’s radio program. Lastly, I feel that Blakeslee should not have kowtowed to Hill’s venomous language and should have had his fundraiser.
State of affairs
Conspicuously missing from David Brooks’ excellent, way overdue, bipartisan lashings for handling our lives in his commentary titled “This pundit will be writing under protest” (June 16) are the zillions of dollars we’ve been spending on our never-ending, dismally justified military adventures, not to mention the myriad troubles of the world, which could use some of our help.
His doomsday formula for the U.S. state of the union, as we’re heading for the 2012 elections, would undoubtedly be appreciably improved if our leaders are told by the people, “We want to re-think our national priorities, avail ourselves to the recommendations of the real experts (not politicians) in every major area of our lives,” so that just maybe, we’ll improve our state of affairs Mr. Brooks is lamenting writing about.
San Luis Obispo
On or off the grid?
Many recent letters have chastised our government for not going after more of the oil that lies off our coast. Others have denounced the county for proposed solar projects in the Carrizo Plain, and Carole Hisasue’s letter (Learn the lessons, June 14) condemning safety at Diablo Canyon adds to many before.
She’s right. There will be issues with any method of generating the energy Americans require to maintain our lifestyle. What’s the right answer? Clearly, there isn’t one — unless cold-fusion or some similar panacea was to magically materialize.
With increasing fondness, I consider that cozy 20th-century lifestyle my father and his family enjoyed prior to rural electrification, TVs, SUVs, etc. But, inexplicably, we have arrived in this brave, new 21st-century America.
You know, I’m already halfway there, and living off the grid becomes more attractive every day.
Something not right
For some time now, many people in Paso Robles have sensed that there is something “not right” at City Hall.
Over a period of time, we have seen city government change from a public entity that provides services at reasonable costs, to a governmental power that now dictates to the citizenry the conditions they will have to adhere to if they wish to remain in Paso Robles.
The actual structural organization of the city has not changed; we still have a city manager type of city government. This puts a lot of power in one person. What has changed is that we use to have city managers who were responsive to the wishes of the public. Now, we have a manager who appears isolated from the public, and just plans and runs his own kingdom.
The prevailing attitude of the council seems to be that city officials know what is best for the residents, so if they have to “disguise” the truth from the residents to get their way, that’s all right.
The citizens in our community have observed this turn in how our city officials treat the people, and people are not sure if the city is functioning well, or on their behalf.
It is not too difficult to understand President Barack Obama’s problems in trying to create jobs. Asking a few questions makes it quite clear.
Who creates jobs? Businesses and those with considerable wealth.
Why should they create jobs? To increase their wealth.
Where are those jobs now? Wherever they generate the most wealth for the businesses.
Why would the wealthy hold back on creating jobs in our country? To do so would show that the president and his party are meeting with success.
What is wrong with that? The president and his party want to redo tax laws and levy fees on goods produced in other countries. This would mean less profit for businesses and the wealthy would have to pay their fair share of taxes.
So they will support the opposing party, which will solve our fiscal problems by putting more pressure on the people who just want to work, who are willing to pay their bills and who deserve good health care at a reasonable cost.
Where’s the courage?
Where is the opposition outrage to the Libyan war? Only a few in government and the media have complained that Libya was not a security threat to America and that President Obama exceeded the “War Powers” authority with a “selective military intervention.”
At the U.N., the Obama administration took the lead to initiate the U.N. resolution for the Libyan action. That must have included a “deal” with China and Russia in exchange for their “abstain” votes.
When hostilities started, America lead the way with 90 percent or more of the mission equipment, personal and cost. After a charade that western European countries would take the lead for NATO military action, America’s contribution diminished to 70 percent. America now has operatives in Libya, and when Libyan rebels receive arms and/or military ground support, it will be surely be America in the lead.
When President Obama ordered Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, many called him courageous. As a country, maybe we see ourselves as courageous if we kill the dictator of Libya. But where is the Obama courage for “selective military intervention” with abusive governments like China, Iran and Syria? Clearly, that courage is not on the table.