Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Develop Or Conserve?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Develop Or Conserve?

    DEVELOP OR CONSERVE?

    Pasadena Star-News
    CA
    06/30/2008

    There is a great deal of talk about a water shortage, and in the
    summer also we are told to save electricity.

    We all know that there are too many cars, both moving and parking.

    I am still amazed at the amount of building, both residential and
    business, in Pasadena. It is obvious that a household like mine cannot
    save enough water to supply one new household.

    Does our local government have a plan to furnish their new buildings
    with water from a new source? Someone must make money from building
    these new homes so they could be donating to a fund to clean up
    the groundwater.

    Please, someone that knows, tell us what the plan is to have more
    water, electricity and space for cars.

    Crescence Waterhouse

    Pasadena

    A helpful backgrounder

    Here is where you can find the state recall manual:
    www.sos.ca.gov/elections/recall.pdf

    Here is the Web site for the constitutional amendment against gay
    marriage: www.protectmarriage.com/read.php

    The recent court ruling bypassed California constitutional founders,
    since gays were in the closet at the time of that writing. It was
    clear that marriage then was defined as man and wife, which is the
    intent of the Constitution. This is the rational for the recall.

    And the following book further defines, the founders' principles
    printed before 1864 "Christian Life and Character of the Civil
    Institutions of the U.S." (Book & CD-ROM)

    I don't like using this book as a reference. I would prefer all
    churches and legal nonprofit charters revoked in light of the
    Rev. Jeremiah Wright and All Saints churches (like the 700 Club),
    so that the taxpayers are not advancing any agenda.

    Bryan Ranger

    Altadena

    Voices shouting

    In their ad hominem attack on Jason Epstein ("Armenian genocide
    still haunts Turkey," June 13), Zanku Armenian and Dickran Tabakian
    show off the hateful and intimidating tactics that are unfortunately
    commonplace within the Armenian National Committee of America.

    The authors ignore the thrust of Epstein's op-ed ("Armenians need
    real, not symbolic help," April 25), which unambiguously urges
    Armenian-American activists to do more to support democracy, economic
    progress and peace in and around Armenia.

    Instead, Armenian and Tabakian do their usual best to shout down
    any voices that do not fall in lockstep with their own, nevermind
    that most Turkish Americans living in Southern California and many
    eminent Western scholars, including Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy,
    Norman Stone, Andrew Mango, Stanford Shaw and Lieutenant Colonel
    Edward Erickson (ret.), believe that the tragic events of 1915 did
    not constitute genocide.

    Bruce Fein

    Resident Scholar

    Turkish Coalition of America

    New York, N.Y.

    Initiative misses mark

    "I say, we will have no more marriages; those that are married already,
    all but one, shall live; the rest shall keep as they are." - Hamlet,
    Act III, Scene 1

    Perhaps Hamlet was being a bit too severe, but he was trying to make
    a point about the quality of marriage as he saw it about him. Had
    he been living in today's socio-political times, he might have taken
    his exhortation even further by imploring all who wish to be married:
    "To a nunnery, go!"

    The California State Supreme Court recently ruled that marriage between
    same sex couples is as legal a process as between any heterosexual
    couple. Thus, it ruled that any form of discrimination against
    homosexual marriage is unconstitutional in the state.

    In response (retaliation?), those who oppose "gay marriage" have
    qualified an initiative amendment for the ballot in November that
    would enshrine in the state Constitution that only marriage between
    one man and one woman would be recognized in California. The issue
    will be voted by the people this November.

    To all those who oppose same-sex marriage, I ask the following
    question: What is "marriage" to you? Is it a legal ceremony or a
    religious one? If it is the former, then it must be treated fairly
    and equally for all people - irrespective of race, color, creed or
    sexual preference. (True, there are some valid arguments against
    incest and polygamy, but these are not at issue here and, in fact,
    are not addressed by the proposed initiative amendment.)

    If, however, marriage is a religious ceremony, then it should be
    conducted solely within the religious community and bear no legal
    standing whatsoever.

    This really is a very simple situation. Either marriage provides a
    civil or a religious contract between two people. It truly cannot
    be both, because our nation is based upon the separation of church
    and state. So, the proposed initiative amendment is focused in the
    wrong direction: It either should eliminate marriage entirely as a
    legal process, or it should be withdrawn as blatantly discriminatory
    against one group of people.

    To satisfy those of the religious right who oppose same-sex marriage,
    the better solution would be to separate the religious and civil
    aspects of marriage permanently and without equivocation for all
    people. Let all couples who wish to have a civil union be granted
    equal status before the law, and let all couples who wish to have a
    religious bond be granted such by the religious institution of their
    choice. Two ceremonies: one civil and one religious. Either, in fact,
    could be held without the other - with appropriate legal or religious
    consequences. In its present form, however, the initiative amendment
    only imposes discrimination against a minority, and does it cloaked
    in the mantle of religion.

    As Hamlet might say: "Think on this when you vote in November."

    Ron Streicher

    Pasadena

    Judge from his street

    This letter is in response to your June 17 editorial "Get on board
    the trash train," "Our View."

    I think anyone who thinks the waste-by-rail project is a good idea
    should move to my neighborhood. They should have to listen to the
    noise of the facility running.

    The people that approve of it should have to fight the excess traffic
    from diesel exhaust spewing trucks that are hauling trash to the
    station.

    We must suffer the health risk associated with living next to a rail
    yard, such as cancer, which is quite an unpleasant way to die, or
    having their children suffer from asthma or birth defects from the
    contaminants. How would you like to live in my area?
Working...
X