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

<b>Illogical plan</b>

EDITOR: I'm hopeful you've received a deluge of outraged mail in response to the Dec. 1 article about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's plan to poison mice on the Farallones.

Where is the logic in killing one creature to save another? The dangers to ashy storm-petrels seem more the result of man-made threats such as global warming and pollution than natural predation.

How does the loss of 100 birds to owls out of a colony of 10,000 result in population decrease? It's not just whether the problem requires management; it's the obscenity of the scorched-earth method being suggested. This is an incomparably important ecosystem. To resort to aerial poisoning before other options are even attempted is ludicrous.

Also, there seems to be a lot of conjecture in the hoped-for outcome. What if the owls decide the baby petrels will do just fine once the mice are gone?

And why the concern at all from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when it won't grant endangered-species status to the petrel?

Killing is counter to the concept of environmental action. It is our duty to manage in a responsible way, which the current proposal is not.

THOM PETTY

San Jose

<b>Enough mud-slinging</b>

EDITOR: What never ceases to amaze me about letters regarding Israel/Palestine is the lack of sensitivity to others and the repeated use of inaccurate propagandistic buzz words best suited to the state-sponsored news media of a Third World dictatorship.

It is foolish to deny that Israel has continued to build in a manner internationally recognized as illegal, while also detaining minors and treating Palestinians poorly. It is foolish to deny that violent terrorist acts have been and continue to be perpetrated by Palestinians and their sympathizers.

The recent passing of Nelson Mandela, a man who initially used violent resistance before transitioning to more peaceful means, should be a reminder of the possibility of solving seemingly intractable quandaries. The success of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee show that the path to reconciliation is not through forced capitulation but dialogue.

The vitriolic hate I see in The Press Democrat, the flagship paper of one of the most liberal places in the U.S., is discouraging. It is important to be self-critical and to understand why someone else has a different point of view. Calling names and slinging mud never brought anyone closer to a peaceful resolution.

MORGAN CARLSTON

Santa Rosa

<b>Impeachment fever</b>

EDITOR: Columnist Dana Milbank reminds us of the wackiness of many House Republicans ("Republicans delirious with impeachment fever," Thursday). The case for impeaching President Barack Obama is so weak as to be ludicrous, and most if not all in the House know this. Yet they stagger on with rhetoric apparently designed to appeal to their tea party base.

If there was ever a solid case for impeaching a president, it could have been made by brave Democrats and honest Republicans during the reign of George W. Bush. Why? How about torture, lying to the country and starting a war of aggression?

I cannot think of one thing that Obama has done that even remotely rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and I am surprised that George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who is otherwise relatively sane, has joined the loonies.

The Republicans were as silent on impeachment for Bush as they are noisy for impeachment for Obama. Why do you suppose this is? If one Googles accomplishments of Obama, they are numerous and laudable. Therefore, there must be some other reason for impeachment talk. Could it possibly be the color of his skin? If so, it's a sad day for our country.

RICHARD SANSOM

Sebastopol

<b>A memorial park</b>

EDITOR: A park would serve as more than a memorial to a tragic error that led to the death of a child, Andy Lopez. It also would be a memorial to all of us in our decision to reduce the love and attraction to violence that our culture has nurtured.

It would be a reminder to not purchase toy guns, to decline the opportunity to watch violent movies, to not support the production of video games that teach the young the fun of adrenaline-fueled activities. I could go on with the list, ending with the fact that our principal national export is weaponry, but we all need simply to decide to end the continuance of this violent culture.

A park will serve as a reminder of our late but necessary decision.

JAN CORBETT

Sebastopol