Divisive tea party
EDITOR: The tea party likes to present itself as being patriotic with roots in our Revolutionary War. I remember a flag from that period on which the following was inscribed, “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” I do not know of any organization as divisive as the tea party. Nor am I aware of any group so dismissive of American ideals.
The idea that tea party members and only tea party members have a monopoly on what is American is much closer to authoritarianism than to anything in the Constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. From what I see, the only speech the tea party countenances is that speech that adheres to positions laid down by the tea party. Liberty is not about everyone marching in lockstep and being consistent with any group of precepts. We need to voice all sorts of positions and discuss them and adopt and adapt the most workable.
EDITOR: It seems ironic that a person can drop off a baby at a police station or hospital with no questions asked, but one may not drop off a dog at a shelter without an interview (“A shift at the shelter," Monday). The interview, of course, is to discourage an intake by perhaps making an owner feel guilty, thereby leaving an unwanted animal in an abusive situation.
I cannot think of a worse policy change. It totally promotes “dumping.” It is inhumane and fosters abuse from an agency dedicated to the opposite. A merciful death is preferable to a long, slow one from starvation, disability and disease. I will no longer be donating to the Sonoma County Animal Shelter.
Grapes vs. redwoods
EDITOR: I recognize global climate change is threatening our vineyard-juiced economy. I recognize that as temperatures warm, vineyards need to be planted farther north and farther west. I also recognize that this is our fault, and it is not a problem that should be answered by expanding into redwood forests.