s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 5 of 15 free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read 10 of 15 free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
You've read all of your free articles this month.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you.
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for reading! Why not subscribe?
Support local journalism and get unlimited access to PressDemocrat.com, the eEdition and our mobile app, all starting at 99 cents per month.
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Subscribe today!
Ooops! You're out of free articles. Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading all of our products and support local journalism.
Already a subscriber?

Non-harvest fair

EDITOR: Eliminating 99 percent of why the Harvest Fair exists is a slap in the face to the farmers and residents of Sonoma County. The fair board is sending a very clear message that farmers are not valued in Sonoma County anymore. Harvest is a time to gather the crops and to bring people together to celebrate the bounty of the season.

According to the letter sent to past Harvest Fair participants, "the re-crafted vision for 2013 will celebrate Sonoma County's agriculture diversity by focusing on the distinctive artisan food, beer and wine of Sonoma County. " Hogwash. This is not agricultural diversity, and it has nothing to do with any kind of harvest.

The fair committee has no right to falsely use the name used since 1975, Sonoma County Harvest Fair. The new name for the re-crafted event needs to properly reflect what is truly is, Sonoma County Non-Harvest Fair.

As published, attendance is down. I can guarantee it will go down further. I know for sure, my family and I will not be going.

CATHY CONOVER

Sebastopol

Digging at Danica

EDITOR: After getting my Monday paper I just had to write. Danica Patrick is the first woman to have the pole position in the Daytona 500, she led the race for five laps, and finished in the top 10, and what are the headlines? "Strong ride, weak finish" and "Patrick makes history as first woman on pole, fades in end." It seems that whenever you say something positive about someone, you always add a negative at the end. Come on, give the woman credit and praise for what she has accomplished without the negativity. Maybe in the future you could apply this to some of the other stories that you print. It could have a positive effect on us all.

EDWARD PAUL

Sebastopol

Fluoride options

EDITOR: While I understand that we need to address the decline in dental health of Sonoma County's children, I question whether fluoridating our water is a prudent path to follow. Doing so would provide the same dosage to everyone regardless of age, size or physical condition. And whatever benefits fluoride may have for young children, the risk fluoridated water poses for senior citizens is real.

Many studies dating back to the 1980s from respected academic and scientific institutions suggest that fluoride can be linked to brain, blood and bone disorders. Specifically in regard to our ever-growing elderly population, fluoride has been linked to an increase in hip and bone fractures. While fluoride makes bones denser, it also makes them more brittle. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 50 percent of the elderly who fracture a hip never return to their homes or regain an independent existence.

Perhaps a better use of the $8.5 million needed to add low-grade fluoride to our water would be to open dental health clinics in the county and in the schools, to provide medical-grade fluoride to the people who would benefit from it and leave those who would not out of the chemical equation.

CHRISTINE HUNSICKER

Santa Rosa

The 100 percent

EDITOR: Tiffany Ann Brown said its "time for radical shift" (Letters, Saturday). Two questions occurred to me. One, is it ethical? And two, is it realistic?

Is it ethical to take in order to give? Does the end justify the means? Is it moral to steal from the few to provide for the greater good? Philosophers have argued that point for centuries.

Is it realistic? Now that answer is easy. No. Do the math. You can take a 100 percent tax on the 1 percent and you will not cover the deficit. That is the deficit, not the debt. It is what we add to the debt every year.

No, there isn't a magic wand in taxing your employers. There isn't a savior in the White House. To stop the financial bleeding and provide for the greater good is going to take a more complicated solution. We all are going to have to sacrifice — yes, 100 percent of us.

By the way, there is nothing radical or new about Robin Hood or Zorro. Those myths have been around for a long time. "Tax the rich" gets you votes, but it won't solve our financial shortfall. Fairy tales won't solve our problems, and there is still some controversy about how the end justifies the means.

ROGER DELGADO

Sebastopol