Voting your conscience
This letter is directed to those who think (and say often and loudly) that both candidates and/or both political parties are corrupt — They’re burned out and want nothing to do with the election — They voted for Bernie and he has let them down by asking them to support the Democrats — They will vote for a third party because they want to “change the direction this country is going” — They want to go back to the “good old days” — They will “vote their conscience”… They don’t want to admit that this “vote your conscience” business has always split the vote and drawn votes away from the best candidate.
We need to remember where this country was 8 years ago. In spite of constant obstruction from the Republican Party, Obama HAS turned the country around. History will show that he has been one of our greatest presidents, even though we have not yet gotten completely out of the economic mess and foreign wars that Bush/Cheney left us. But we knew it was going to be a long and difficult process.
Since the days of FDR, when the New Deal and other social programs arguably pulled us out of the Great Depression of 1929 many Republicans and Democrats have been fighting all progressive movements, claiming they’re fiscally impractica; and foreign problems are not our problems. But modern technology has made the world a lot smaller and the world’s problems ARE our problems.
That is why the success of Bernie Sanders in influencing the direction of the Democratic Party has been so remarkable and so welcomed by Liberals. It is the most progressive platform in Democratic Party history. Sanders’ policy director, Warren Gunnells, said the campaign achieved “at least 80 percent” of what it came for. Bernie himself has said over and over again that his was a “movement”. Yet it seems his former supporters have given up on him because they would rather believe Republican propaganda about Hillary Clinton and let her opponent completely undo everything Bernie, Obama and most Democrats have accomplished.
If you want to see the details of the Sanders/Clinton cooperation on the platform, Google Wikipedia, Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign, and scroll down to “Platform”. You might want to write a note of thanks to Bernie for the more progressive changes in the Democratic Party. You also might want to check out what Politifact and other fact checkers have to say. An article in Mother Jones ranks Hillary as the second-most honest prominent politician in the country. (Obama is first, Sanders third…)
I know there are still nay-sayers who have convinced themselves, “Never Hillary.” However if you believe the years of unfounded rhetoric that Secretary Clinton is so dishonest or lacks such integrity that she will ignore the millions who voted for Bernie Sanders — and she wants to throw away their hours and efforts towards improving our Democracy and our lives, go ahead and vote for another candidate — or not at all… “Vote your conscience”. Then some sorry morning when you come eyeball to eyeball with your conscience in the mirror, and President Donald Trump is haranguing you from the TV, well … pack your bags and head out of the country, you know, IF you can get over that wall…
Shirley Howland, Clearlake
Support for Scott
As your Lake County District 4 Supervisor for the past 16 years, it gives me great pleasure to endorse Tina Scott for District 4 Supervisor. Tina Scott is the only candidate with the experience and integrity necessary to move Lake County forward. Tina will be an independent voice of the people. She has the vision, tenacity, and grit necessary to get things done. Tina will build bridges, not burn them.
Tina was the top vote getter in the June primary, surprising many, but not me. I have personally observed Tina’s work ethic, and I know Tina to be a smart and hard-working leader. More importantly, Tina places a high value on integrity, and unlike her opponent she is the type of person that will always be accountable to the taxpayers. My decision to support Tina is in part because of her service as a School Board Member with the Lake County Unified School District where Tina spearheaded efforts to pass a $17 million bond measure that will fund a new community pool; a new learning center; and equip all classrooms with 21st Century learning capabilities. During her service on the school board, Tina has been able to support balanced budgets that have resulted in an increase in staff, teachers, and programs in order to benefit students. I have talked to our local teachers, and they find Tina to be someone that they can trust to solve problems.
Tina Scott is a tireless public servant who puts others before herself. She serves as a tutor in the Schools of Hope reading program at her neighborhood elementary school working one-on-one with 1st grade students to build critical reading skills. She was appointed as a Juvenile Justice Commissioner advocating and protecting the safety and well-being of delinquent and dependent youth; and Tina currently serves as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, (CASA), a program that during my term as Supervisor that I helped re-launch. For CASA, Tina serves as an advocate for our county’s abused and neglected children. Amazingly, Tina and her husband Doug have served our community as foster parents fostering more than 60 children where their devotion and dedication gave these foster youths a new beginning in life.
It is no surprise to me that Tina has pledged to donate 20 percent of her gross income to non-profits in District 4 who work with seniors and our youth. Tina puts her money where her mouth is.
Please join me by voting for Tina Scott on November 8th as our next Lake County Supervisor for District 4. I am confident that you will pleased with the results.
Anthony W. Farrington, Lake County Supervisor, District 4
History lesson
I’ve just suffered through another TV program partly dealing with “gun control.” I am dismayed at how many alleged “experts” would fail an examination on early American history The Second Amendment of our Constitution has nothing to do with the ownership or possession of “arms”. It has to do with the ability to “bear” (ie, carry/wear) any arms, not whether one owned them. At the time the wearing/bearing of “arms” was part of urban dress and the occupying British prohibited Patriots from doing so, which meant that Patriots were looked down upon or subject to arrest as liars/spies.
The right/ability to own/possess “arms” was established, de facto, the moment the first armed settler came ashore in Jamestown. Important to specify that the term “arms” included knives, daggers, dirks, cutlasses and swords, tomahawks, bows and arrows, as well as firearms, and it was the possession of arms that enabled our country to survive. The Second Amendment resulted from the demand of the New York Colony that it be included as the result of its experience during the occupation.
As I understand it, the powers that are not noted a Federal area of responsibility are state responsibilities. Seems to me that the “bear/carry” regulations are Federal, but any regulation of ownership, or condition of ownership, are state responsibilities.
Guff Worth, Lakeport
Commentary on cell phone towers
The two part commentary by Howard Glasser regarding the dangers of cell phone towers contains so many inaccuracies and pseudo-scientific statements that one hardly knows where to begin when commenting on it. But ….
1. Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are created by many sources. A few are — electric blankets, cell phones, electrical transmission lines, radio towers, television sets, wi-fi networks, baby monitors, electric ranges and stoves, and cell phone towers. In other words — EMFs are generated by currents running through electrical wires. Anyone wanting to avoid EMFs will need to live in a tent in the remote wilderness, far from any electrical source.
2. Cell phone towers generate relatively low levels of EMF at ground levels and as a result, the level of exposure to radio waves is very low. This is because, as the American Cancer Society notes, “The energy from a cellular phone tower antenna, like that of other telecommunication antennas, is directed toward the horizon (parallel to the ground), with some downward scatter. Base station antennas use higher power levels than other types of land-mobile antennas, but much lower levels than those from radio and television broadcast stations. The amount of energy decreases rapidly as the distance from the antenna increases. As a result, the level of exposure to radio waves at ground level is very low compared to the level close to the antenna.”
3. Mr. Glasser references the statements of Dr. Adilza Condessa Dode in Brazil, purporting to link an increased cancer rate with cell phone tower location. Her statements (she is indeed not a “he”) have never been peer-reviewed or otherwise fully critiqued by scientists. This is in large part because her work was incredibly sloppy. The few scientists who have bothered to comment on Dr. Dode’s work (see Dr. Richard Leonelli, University of Montreal, as one example) note that Dr. Dode failed to adjust for age differences, seemingly cherry-picked the towers around which populations were studied, excluded any references to cancer deaths prior to the installation of the selected cell phone towers, and made a host of other errors that any first-year researcher would recognize. While Dr. Dode’s statements have gained a lot of credence on various fringe-alarmist web sites, no legitimate scientists have accepted her work.
4. The German study that Mr. Glasser references has been criticized for reasons similar to the criticisms leveled at the Dode study. The German study included only one cell tower and did not adjust for the average age of the population around that tower. When other scientists analyzed the average age of that population, they found that cancer rates within individual age groups surrounding the tower in question closely mirrored cancer rates for the nation as a whole within those age groups.
5. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency within the World Health Organization, did not say anything like “…came to the conclusion that radiation spewing from cell towers is a carcinogen”. Rather, their 2011 study focused on personal cell phone use and concluded that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.” Readers can read the full study by searching the WHO website. Note that this study dealt with personal cell phone use and not cell towers.
6. The Bioinitiative 2012 Report referenced was self-published by 14 self-identified “scientists and public health professionals”. The report has been severely criticized by a number of health organizations due to the bias and lack of balance in the report, false claims, and a general lack of scientific rigor. Readers may wish to note the references contained in the Wikipedia section titled “Bioinitiative Report” to see the many criticisms of that report.
7. Numerous agencies ranging from the American Cancer Society to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) have repeatedly noted that measured EMFs at and near cell phone towers measure literally thousands of times less than the safe levels noted by governmental agencies.
We should all be aware of potential health hazards in our community and we should certainly educate ourselves regarding potential dangers in our community. However, the sort of alarmist commentary put forth by Mr. Glasser does nothing to further our well-being. To that end, we probably don’t want to hold a cell phone to our ear for hours every day, we should not let our children sit within a few feet of a television set, we might want to test our microwave oven for leakage, and we don’t want to get too many chest x-rays. In all cases, however, we need to educate ourselves about the actual science involved in any matter before we become consumed with worry. As to the specifics of cell tower location — we should be aware of any potential hazards, but we should do so based on actual evidence rather than alarmist tracts that have no basis in science.
Dennis Krentz, Clearlake Oaks
