Letters 12/15/2024

• Smashed & Grabbed
• Why I Voted Third-Party
• Public Forest Or Profit Center
• Resist Trump's Deportation Plans
• Redwood Community Services Wants Money From The Public To Cover High Insurance Costs
• Tax Bikes, Too
• Nursing Home Squeeze
• Road Hazards
• Unmentionables

---

SMASHED & GRABBED

Editor:

Where we see a great opportunity with our democracy is in monitoring a new law. Does it reduce crime? What has it cost us, the taxpayers?

In the case of Proposition 36, for example, 10.2 million voters marked “yes” (68%) and 4.7 million “no” (32%). That tally doesn’t mean we will win the battle on crime. It does call for better accounting and reporting of the economics of crime and societal/legal choices of punishment and deterrence. Will this law precipitate new prisons to be built? What is the cost to staff them? Will the change result in a decline of smash-and-grab crime? Who will be monitoring these outcomes?

If we do not follow up in assessing the choices we make, our capacity to demonstrate critical thinking is a clear loser. Our elected lawmakers heard the voters. Us: We have the responsibility to hold them as accountable as those who perpetrate smash and grab. Moving forward without relevant transparent accountability makes us complicit in malfeasance.

Rich & Betsy Randolph

Santa Rosa

---

WHY I VOTED THIRD-PARTY

Editor,

I’m a progressive Californian, a Black man, and I did not vote for Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris this year or Donald Trump. I voted for Claudia De La Cruz, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for president.

The decision was easy. With two exceptions over the last four decades of presidential elections, I have always voted for a progressive third-party presidential candidate. (The two exceptions? Hillary Clinton in 2016 because I liked the idea of breaking the glass ceiling. And Walter Mondale in 1984 because of my distaste for Ronald Reagan.)

I reject the guilt-trip knock about how a third-party vote is a throwaway vote, or worse, one that opens the door for big, bad bogeyman candidates. And I don’t make my choices thinking it doesn’t matter because in my “blue” state a Democrat will win anyway. I mark my ballot the way I do because it reflects my conscience and deepest political beliefs.

I’ll admit that this year I didn’t tell most of my friends and family my plan. I would have been ripped from pillar to post, verbally mugged: “It’s a wasted vote.” “It will hurt the cause.” “It is downright silly to vote for someone who almost no one has heard of in a party that hasn’t been relevant since the Vietnam War.” My relatives and associates were passionate supporters of Harris. Their enthusiasm was understandable. They would have regarded my vote as wrecking the history-making chances for a Black woman with East Indian roots to sit in the Oval Office. I understood, and I had no illusion that I could change their minds.

In any case, the issue for me was not Harris, her policy positions or her campaign. (I won’t engage in the onslaught of second, third and fourth guessing about what sunk her.) The issue was and is the two-party system itself.

Republican and Democratic politics are an iron chain that tethers the American electorate. Voting for De La Cruz was my way of taking a hammer to that chain. I prize independence, the right to exercise freedom of choice, and I believe that more choices are true to the spirit of democracy.

This is not a starry-eyed delusion. Many countries have a pluralistic representative system with multiple political parties. Their citizens have a real choice to vote their beliefs and interests. The parties they can vote for are not on the fringe. They win offices. They hold seats in parliaments and assemblies. They often form coalitions with other parties to gain a more powerful seat at the table. The multiplicity of parties gives more people a distinct voice in how their government works.

But baked into U.S. politics is the notion that there can only be two parties, and the winner takes all. The Constitution doesn’t demand it, and every four years, I hear people wishing for other choices, other parties that could have a shot at making an impact.

With either a Republican or a Democrat guaranteed to take power, special interests make their bets. This year, both campaigns had king’s-ransom war chests flowing with donations from regular people but mainly from fat-cat corporations, industry and trade groups, big-gun labor unions and a parade of millionaires and billionaires.

The two-party system also guaranteed that only Republican and Democratic agendas got media exposure, major endorsements and nonstop public attention. Other approaches to our challenges, our security or our role in the world just didn’t have a chance.

Let me be clear again. My vote for De La Cruz was not a deliberate snub of Harris, and I have no regrets. I simply believe that for our democracy to be a democracy, the people must have choices, and those choices should not exclusively come marked with a Republican or Democrat label.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, author of ‘President Trump’s America’

---

PUBLIC FOREST OR PROFIT CENTER

Editor,

The Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) has asked for public comment on a revised Forest Management Plan which will control forest activities for the next 10-years. A new plan is needed to correct past mistakes. For example: Look at the Noyo and Big River after a heavy rain. Sediments pouring off the JDSF as a muddy soup flow into the rivers from years of abusive timber harvesting and road building. Both rivers have been designated as “Sediment Impaired.” Coho salmon once plentiful in our area has now become an endangered species. The negative impacts of their activities since they first acquired the forest 75-years ago is not the pretty picture they make it out to be.

Timber projects often include older redwoods to increase the value for contractors to submit higher bids. This has little to do with resource management, it has to do with generating revenue. For example: At a public meeting with the Jackson Advisory Group, Manager Kevin Conway requested approval for the “Camp One” timber sale and one of his justifications was: “We’re running out of money.”

The JDSF often misrepresents their timber harvest projects on public land as resource management while the invisible white elephant in the room making every final decision is how much money they can make from selling our public resources. Private corporations make no pretension about their intentions when cutting down the redwood forest but the results are the same, and our downstream rivers bleeding out sediments are paying the price.

Richard Ettelson

Mendocino

---

RESIST TRUMP'S DEPORTATION PLANS

Editor:

As plans to implement Donald Trump’s proposal to forcibly deport millions of immigrants begin to take shape, we should be clear-eyed about what this means for us.

As a point of national reference, we know that from 1929 to the 1950s, authorities forcibly repatriated more than 2 million people of Mexican ancestry. With Trump vowing to deport many more than that today, it is safe to say that here in Sonoma County — where we have an estimated 25,000-38,000 undocumented immigrants — the impacts will be severe.

For starters, our state and county lawmakers could well be pitted against their federal counterparts. We also know from past experience that mass deportation will result in considerable economic upheaval, not least labor shortages and increases in food prices, affecting us all. Trump’s claim that only criminals will be deported fails the history test. Mass deportations have always swept up far more than the targeted populations. For instance, more than a million of those repatriated in the 20th century were born in the U.S.

For these and many other reasons, state and county leaders deserve our support and encouragement as they contemplate how best to resist Trump’s plans.

David Bolt

Sebastopol

---

REDWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES WANTS MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC TO COVER HIGH INSURANCE COSTS

To the Editor:

Redwood Community Services has been providing foster care services since its incorporation in 1995. Our foster care programs are designed to create a supported living environment for youth in the foster care system. Youth are placed with approved resource families, who are educated through a multi faceted training program in order to prepare them for meeting the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of youth in their care. To address differing needs of children and youth within the foster care system and the complexity of family dynamics, Redwood Community Services offers an array of foster care options.

The insurance premium crisis has significantly impacted many organizations, including Redwood Community Services (RCS), driven by factors such as changes in the statute of limitations and natural disasters, leading to rising reinsurance costs. This has resulted in insurance companies raising premiums or withdrawing from high-risk markets altogether. In California, the situation is particularly severe, with many insurers not renewing policies for Foster Family Agencies (FFAs) due to perceived high risks.

RCS has experienced a 400 percent increase in insurance premiums, amounting to approximately $650,000, which has placed a substantial strain on our financial resources. This increase has affected all aspects of RCS’s operations, including its FFA, residential services, emergency shelter and housing services, and in home support services. Despite these challenges, RCS remains committed to its mission, staff, and the communities we serve.

To address these challenges, RCS has been working on plans to increase rates and decrease costs. However, the financial burden remains heavy, and RCS is seeking additional support to continue providing high-quality care and support to the community. We are seeking financial assistance from a broader audience, including individuals, organizations, and partners, to sustain our essential services and support foster youth in rural Northern California.

If you are concerned about the resources and services for the most vulnerable populations being put at risk, now is the time to act. Please consider donating today to help us achieve our goals and make a difference. Your support is crucial in ensuring that these essential services continue to reach those who need them the most. Any contribution, no matter how small, will make a significant difference.

Redwood Community Services

Ukiah

---

A READER WRITES:

RCS begging for money. WTH. Millions in county contracts is not enough? WTH? Hey County, might be time to audit RCS, where is that money going? What exactly are the tax payers getting for all those millions?

---

TAX BIKES, TOO

Editor:

Over the past two decades bicycle clubs, cliques and other advocates have successfully advocated for construction of literally hundreds of miles of bike paths, lanes and trails, paid for primarily from gas taxes originally intended for maintenance of roads. Redistribution of these funds has benefited the few while paid for by the many. It is past the time when adult cyclists should contribute toward funding these projects.

Speed limits for cyclists on trails and basic traffic safety rules on our roads are rarely enforced. As a result, automobile drivers are required to risk lives as laws require that they cross double lines to protect bike riders and hikers, and equestrians are required to risk their lives on trails that now allow motorized bicycles and bicycle races. A reasonable approach would be a tax on the purchase of bicycles selling for over $1,000 and annual licensing fees based on the methodology applied to motorized vehicles. Bicycles for children under 16 would be exempted.

William Campagna

Cotati

---

NURSING HOME SQUEEZE

Editor:

I read with increasing horror about how the nursing home industry wants Donald Trump to get rid of a regulation calling for adequate staffing. The corporations that own nursing homes obviously value money over the quality of life of the persons in their care.

The article says quality of care/adequate staffing has been of concern for decades. The one federal mandate that reverses the privilege of corporations over persons is probably not going to go into effect because it would raise expenses 2%.

In a past life, I was a social work educator overseeing interns, and I visited many nursing homes. They ranged from totally caring to warehousing. I watched one student get hired, promoted and change from colleague to cold, distanced and uncaring head administrator. He’d bought into the corporate model to get ahead and left his professional ethics behind. He became a stooge.

Decisions about care don’t take place in the facility. They are made in a corporate headquarters by persons skilled in numbers manipulation. Care of our aged loved ones is literally of little, if any, concern to bean counters.

According to Citizens United, these corporations are persons. Give me a break.

Jeffrey J. Olson

Clearlake Oaks

---

ROAD HAZARDS

Editor:

The recent Press Democrat story about hostility between bikes and cars in Paris reminded me of my experience in Santa Rosa. I have traveled by bicycle, walking and bus most of my life, but recent physical and bus schedule problems have forced me to use a car. When on the bike, I was the frequent victim of hostile, aggressive and dangerous violations of my right of way by motorists and even had drinks tossed at me from time to time. Now as a motorist, I see bicyclists engaging in idiotic and dangerous violations of the law that sometimes defy imagination. It looks like one of those rare situations where both sides really are wrong.

Edward Meisse

Santa Rosa

---

UNMENTIONABLES

Editor,

It’s a pity there was no space for men’s underpants in Clare Bucknell’s review of the Under/Wear show at the Rijksmuseum (LRB, 21 November). It’s true that they have always been an easier affair, with many men simply tying their undershirt between their legs, but there is still much to be said about the design and materials, the use of buttons, flaps, laces and so on. Over the centuries, as women’s underwear became ever more elaborate and punitive to support an expanding or subtracting silhouette, men’s lower garments became progressively simpler, and fitted more naturally and closely to the lower body. This had the effect of making breeches and then trousers socially charged garments, in more direct and revealing contact with the rear and genitals. The 19th-century vocabulary for trousers – the OED lists ‘inexpressibles’, ‘unmentionables’, ‘indescribables’, ‘ineffables’, ‘never-mention-’ems’, ‘unwhisperables’ and ‘unutterables’ – captures this, though it was more likely used in fun than out of prudery.

An example, to complement Bucknell’s more sensual quotation from Hardy’s The Well-Beloved, is Trollope’s short story ‘The Relics of General Chassé’, in which two English tourists, the narrator and the well-fed Reverend Horne, visit Antwerp and the private apartments recently inhabited by General Chassé (a real figure), who had valiantly but unsuccessfully held out against a French siege of the city in 1832. Wandering into the bedroom, Horne sights an abandoned pair of the general’s breeches – variously described as ‘respectable leathern articles’, a ‘virile habiliment’, ‘what’s-the-names’ and ‘regimentals’ – and determines to try them on. He takes off his own trousers and is in the middle of failing to wrestle his way into the general’s when a group of Englishwomen enter the room. He and the narrator are forced to hide themselves in a dressing room, where Horne, admitting defeat, casts aside the general’s breeches. Meanwhile, the ladies, mistaking Horne’s trousers for sacred relics of the general, cut them up into sections and strips, intending to use the cloth (judged very fine) for a bag, a needlecase, a pincushion, a pen-wiper and leggings for the winter months. All that’s left behind is a ‘melancholy skeleton of seams and buttons’.

Horne is eventually smuggled back to the hotel under a cloak, and re-emerges the next day dressed as normal above the waist, but below in ‘a pair of red plush’, ending an inch from the knee, with socks black silk to the calf and white cotton thereafter. The narrator, meeting the ladies a few days later, gleefully informs them of their mistake. The story ends without the word ‘trousers’ having been used once.

Tom Crewe

London