Letters to the Editor

A response to Mr. Ralph PeckIn that letter published Feb. 22, Mr. Peck opined that President Obama’s “actions have been to destroy the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.”

So that, and his statement that he wanted to “fundamentally change” the country, should be determined to be an impeachable offense.

I believe Mr. Peck is probably a decent human being. But I also believe him to be wrong.

I love my country too, Mr. Peck, but I do believe that the country does need a fundamental change, and I believe the President is trying to get the country back in the hands of its citizens, not destroy it.

Consider: Right now just 10 percent of our population holds around 80 percent of financial wealth in the country. And CEOs stipends far exceed their worth; while many workers receive pay far below their contribution to the success of the companies they work for, some even earning wages below the national poverty level.

The President is accused of wanting to redistribute wealth by taking it away from the super rich. He may be, and — in my view — it should be. But the real redistribution being asked for is the introduction of responsibility into the veins of the super wealthy, and a concurrent reduction in greed.

The Supreme Court has decided that corporations and unions are people, allowing huge contributions by both entities. The average American can’t possibly match them and can’t get the attention of their representatives that the corporations and unions can. So elections have become contests over who can raise the most money to produce campaign lies, instead of who has the best ideas.

Violence pervades our society. Guns are killing people everywhere, in the hands of people in rage and wing nuts. Mentally disturbed people roam the streets in need of help. Television, computer games, and films glorify violence and amplify it.

And Congress isn’t congressional (as in the definition: “the act of coming together.”) They aren’t, they don’t. They act like spoiled brats who pout over not having everything their way.

Finally, our nation is not “One nation, indivisible…” We are divided, terribly so. You want to impeach someone? Impeach Congress and the Supremes. Neither represents the average American anymore.

In truth, we don’t have a democracy any more — we have a plutocracy. We do need a fundamental change.

John Lynn,



Uncivil Conduct

In a 22 February Union-Tribune article mainly focussing on Gary Felien’s disingenuous opinions about conflict and power on the Oceanside City Council, the reporter also recorded Felien’s mean-spirited views about Martin Luther King Day.

Felien is irritated because MLK Day is a paid city holiday for Oceanside city workers, while Presidents Day honoring Washington and Lincoln is only a “floating holiday.” How could such an obvious injustice have occurred? How could this possibly be the case?

“It’s an issue of culture here,” Felien insists. “Nobody’s going to tell me that Martin Luther King did more for this country than President Washington and President Lincoln combined.” What wonderfully simple math for measuring the great complexity of history and the full value of contributions made by such grand historical figures.

Felien’s ill-tempered rationale disrespects all three of these Americans, each a unique hero in his own particular and different historical time.

In retrospect, Washington is no doubt amused, Lincoln is turning over in his grave, and King is simply turning the other cheek. Imagine taking Felien’s unbalanced sense of “culture” and historical disproportion into an elementary school classroom on American History.

This is not the first time Felien has behaved badly toward those who are clearly not of his “culture.”

In the last election campaign during a one-on-one TV debate with Latina attorney Lorena Gonzoles, he treated her with outright disrespect and disdain. Now he’s at it again.

It’s a shame Felien seems to know so little about culture and history, and that he represents such a terrible example of incivility, indeed of bigotry, in the political discourse of North County San Diego.

Bill Fischer,



Things we have learned from the Streetscape process

No matter how open a process, some people will still complain the residents weren’t consulted.

No matter how long a public hearing process (2 years) someone will still claim it was rushed.

No matter how well the public’s wishes were incorporated into designs, and how experts on the various subjects were consulted. (e.g., on traffic flow), there will inevitably be those who think they know better.

No matter how popular the final choice (70 percent of those who bothered to come to the meetings to learn about the project), someone will still claim that it’s not what the public wants.

“Concerns” that have been thoroughly and factually answered by experts will continue to be given as objections, and no doubt used to alarm neighbors.

No matter how many times that factual errors in letters are corrected, those erroneous claims will continue to be made.

Judy Miller,



Log in with your credentials


Forgot your details?

Skip to toolbar