s
s
Sections
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, nearly 1.5 million people used their mobile devices to visit our sites.
Already a subscriber?
Wow! You read a lot!
Reading enhances confidence, empathy, decision-making, and overall life satisfaction. Keep it up! Subscribe.
Already a subscriber?
Oops, you're out of free articles.
Until next month, you can always look over someone's shoulder at the coffee shop.
Already a subscriber?
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, we posted 390 stories about the fire. And they were shared nearly 137,000 times.
Already a subscriber?
Supporting the community that supports us.
Obviously you value quality local journalism. Thank you.
Already a subscriber?
Oops, you're out of free articles.
We miss you already! (Subscriptions start at just 99 cents.)
Already a subscriber?

Electric idea

EDITOR: The front page article (“More electric vehicles needed,” Thursday) noted that EV drivers save significantly on fuel costs. That’s great news. Even better, they also save on maintenance costs because of the simpler EV drive train and less wear on brakes due to regenerative braking. If they’re charging their cars using their own solar panels, they also enjoy perfectly predictable energy costs instead of the sometimes wild swings in gas prices.

Enticing technology and falling prices are compelling market forces driving EV adoption. A revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend, like that proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby, would further increase the speed of adoption by imposing a steadily increasing fee on carbon. Fossil fuels have enjoyed a hidden subsidy because the real health and environmental costs of burning carbon have been shifted to the public and are not borne by producers or consumers of them. A fee on fossil fuels would spur adoption of currently available cleaner technologies and spur innovation for new approaches. The “revenue neutral” part of the plan would return proceeds to citizens to offset increased prices. A low carbon footprint would yield a net gain.

LAURA NEISH

Santa Rosa

Violating his oath

EDITOR: I may be late in putting out this letter, but I believe it must be sent. On July 28, at a Suffolk Community College in Brentwood, New York, President Donald Trump publicly encouraged police officers to violate the Fourth, Eighth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, which grant suspects the right to be free from the excessive force while in official custody.

Police departments across America responded to the president: They already have a standard in place to follow, strict rules and procedures in handling prisoners while being arrested. Violations of these rules are treated with the utmost seriousness.

But I believe something else wasn’t mentioned. By taking such an anti-Constitutional position, Trump has violated his own oath of office. President Trump swore on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thus, by encouraging police officers to criminally violate the Constitution by way of police brutality, he violated that oath.

ARMANDO GOMEZ

Santa Rosa

Blowing smoke?

EDITOR: During the campaign, candidate Donald Trump promised that he would replace Obamacare with a plan that covered everyone, with better coverage, at lower cost — and he wouldn’t cut Medicare/Medicaid. And it would be “beautiful.”

He was quite explicit about this, which implies that he had a plan. Isn’t it about time that President Trump gives a copy of his plan to Congress, since they can’t seem to figure it out on their own? Or are we to think the president was just blowing smoke?

CARL H. INGLIN

Santa Rosa

Too many pads?

EDITOR: Regarding the editorial in Thursday’s Press Democrat dealing with football injuries (“Football must change to protect players”), It has longed seemed to me that a significant factor in the injuries are the helmets and pads themselves. If the players did not have the massive helmets, they might be less inclined to use their heads as a “weapon” and might limit the violence of the hits. Even reducing the helmets to the old leather helmets would be a significant help.

As an example, I suggest that the sport of rugby has significant contact also, but the rate of serious injuries is much less. The fans, of course, would have to come to terms with the fact that the violence on the field would decrease. As stated in the editorial, the fans may be the biggest resistance to change.

BOB HARRIS

Santa Rosa

Why wear it?

EDITOR: I was amused while reading Bob Padecky’s column on the new Riddell helmets (“High tech head gear,” Thursday). A couple of thoughts came to mind. First, the Russian Roulette-style choice for who gets them will leave out 65 players. Will it be your kid?

Second, the helmet will only tell you it was a hard hit after the hit is delivered. Why exactly is any child under the age of 18 legally allowed to play this game? What does it say about the parent who allows it?

There is no helmet yet devised, and some say there never will be one, that stops the brain from slamming up against the skull and causing damage in collisions like this. This is your child’s brain to which I refer. It’s time we brought the curtain down on this medieval sport. Should we bring back jousting, if it’s the mayhem that attracts you?

And that is what this is about. Parental gratification. Why not direct your efforts to making your child an academic, instead?

BOB MARKETOS

Petaluma

Too old for kittens?

EDITOR: I am shocked and insulted to discover a form of age discrimination that seems to have been hidden from society. At 73, I was told I am too old to adopt kittens.

One organization told me outright I was too old. Another refused to approve me for anything other than a senior cat. While I have nothing against mature cats, I had my heart set on kittens that would be companions for a longer period of time. Do pet adoption organizations consider that most younger people are renters and most landlords ban pets? Changes in housing and employment can make it impossible to keep pets.

But, seniors tend to have a calmer, more stable lifestyle with steady income from Social Security and other sources. Adopting a pet can mean the difference between feeling lonely and depressed or feeling loved and necessary to another living being. Seniors also are more likely to provide regular veterinary care and make advance arrangements for pets that may outlive them.

SHERI GRAVES

Santa Rosa