Saturday's Letters to the Editor

<p class="bold allcaps">Smoky places</p> <p>EDITOR: I have been noticing a double-standard for the past few years. People write to the paper complaining about cigarette smoke in public places, but what about other sources of smoke?</p><p>No one seems to be concerned with the smoke generated by outdoor barbecues, fire pits, camp fires or even large fireworks displays. Officials in the city of Belmont tried to pass a law a few years ago that would ban cigarette smoking in apartments and condominiums, so as not to affect neighboring units, but they did not address smoke generated by barbecues.</p><p>A locally owned grocery store in Santa Rosa known for promoting healthful foods has signs all along the front of the store prohibiting smoking, yet every weekend the store pulls out a big barbecue/smoker and cooks amid huge clouds of smoke. Anyone who has attended a large public fireworks display has seen the amount of smoke from the fireworks.</p><p>Where is the outcry about these sources of smoke? Any kind of smoke is harmful to a person's health. Why is cigarette smoke singled out? Am I the only one to notice this? </p><p>KIM HARTY</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Why are we there?</h3> <p>EDITOR: The Thursday article concerning a survey about the war in Afghanistan noted that, among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting. This percentage has increased from past surveys. The article also noted that 47 percent say that the war is worth the cost.</p><p>I would appreciate someone telling me why they believe the loss of our young people is worth it. Also, don't these people realize that the cost for this war is seriously affecting the United States? We were told that troops would be leaving Iraq but they didn't tell us they would be redeployed to Afghanistan.</p><p>RON SULLIVAN</p><p>Windsor</p><h3>Rx for health</h3> <p>EDITOR: In reply to Rep. Lynn Woolsey's Close to Home column (“Real health reform must include a public option,” Aug. 8), I would like to say that a public plan should be limited to health care for the poor and indigent.</p><p>Why not bring back the community hospital system funded by taxpayer money? Cost and affordability are certainly issues. The insurance industry is largely responsible for the high cost of health care, and that is because it has been profiteering from professional services. For effective reform, health care providers and their patients must regain control over cost, coverage and quality of care. Tax breaks for medical expenses, health savings accounts and tort reform would go a long way to restoring control to the professionals.</p><p>The public option will in the long (or short) run completely socialize the system to where doctors become civil servants answerable to the government and not to the patient, and these civil servants will be enslaved to policy and politics.</p><p>Removing health care from enslavement to the insurance industry must be done but not by enslaving it to a socialized government system.</p><p>Woolsey needs to listen to her constituents, but I don't see that she has scheduled a town hall meeting.</p><p>MICHAEL P. DIEPENBROCK</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Bears and campers</h3> <p>EDITOR: “I'd rather share my campfire with a brown bear than an armed camper” (“Bears before guns,” Letters, Tuesday). My first response to Ellen Boneparth's letter was a loud guffaw and laughter.</p><p>A brown bear is a grizzly bear. They can reach eight feet in height and hundreds of pounds in weight, with huge claws and teeth, and they and have an uncaring disposition toward humans. Lewis and Clark's journals describe encounters with grizzlies, and they were all touch-and-go. Their bullets seemed to have little effect on the huge bears. The explorers climbed a lot of trees.</p><p>I would pay to watch a reality television show wherein I sat next to an armed camper by my campfire, and Boneparth sat next to an 8-foot brown bear by her campfire. I'm still laughing at the scenes.</p><p>TIM McGRAW</p><p>Healdsburg</p><h3>Great bike route</h3> <p>EDITOR: Thank you for your article highlighting the Humboldt Street bicycle boulevard (“Boulevard of bike dreams,” Wednesday).</p><p>For the first time since moving to California 15 years ago, I am able to ride my bike to work as of this week. I am gratified to the drivers of cars and trucks for recognizing that a bicycle is a vehicle and sharing the road with cyclists. The experience has been more positive than I anticipated, resulting in my commitment to ride more often than originally planned.</p><p>I thank the city of Santa Rosa for continuing to improve conditions to make it safer for bicyclists. Every bike rider means one less car on the streets.</p><p>NANCY PERSONS</p><p>Santa Rosa</p><h3>Town holler</h3> <p>EDITOR: I am surprised by your Wednesday editorial calling for town hall meetings where incivility is being carried out (“Town talk”).</p><p>Calling for our elected officials to “live on the edge” is going too far. How much risk do you think they must endure with gun-toting, screaming zealots who do not want to discuss anything of substance?</p><p>This same crowd will be soon at your door, calling for the shutting down of this newspaper because it is on the other side of an issue, no matter how sound your reasoning may be, or that it might be for the public good.</p><p>I will be willing to place money that this type of behavior will be carried out in our educational institutions soon, since it is now being condoned in public forums. Are not our teachers “living on the edge” presently?</p><p>GERARD F. ORME</p><p>Sonoma</p><h3>Willits sentencing</h3> <p>EDITOR: On Aug. 4, Clint Smith of Willits, who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15-year-old Willits Charter School student, was sentenced to six months in Mendocino County Jail by Judge Clay Brennan, who hasn't determined whether Smith must register as a sex offender.</p><p>In listening to the three therapists who had examined Smith, each one argued that Smith was not a pedophile because the victim was over the age of 12. In addition, he was not a predator because he didn't pursue her. The word provocative was used to describe the victim, as if it were her fault this heinous crime occurred.</p><p>The psycho-babble terms “passive,” “co-dependent” and “unable to set boundaries” were used to describe Smith, thus minimizing his responsibility for his actions. The term “statutory rape” was never used, even though that's exactly what happened.</p><p>BARBARALEE LILKER</p><p>Willits</p>