Mailbag: No defense for Trump’s offense

Donald Trump’s recent comment re: the 2nd Amendment, by insinuating supporters of that amendment could take things into their own hands regarding Hillary Clinton, has stepped over the line from presidential discourse into the realm of a dictatorial endorsement of violence.

When coupled to his previous assertion that the military would do his bidding, regardless of legality, that insinuation prompts me to reflect on recent American history. In 1973, during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who was conducting the investigation. Richardson refused and resigned. The assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and resigned.

The third in line, Robert Bork, did Nixon’s bidding.

If Trump is elected, and a crisis arises that has him wanting to take out his revenge on others, those in charge of the federal departments involved would be faced with a moral dilemma. Some may be honorable and do as Richardson and Ruckelshaus did, but sooner or later Trump will find someone to carry out his irrational orders. Need I add more to this danger that Trump poses?

Regardless of Clinton’s shortcomings, this election is not about her, but about who will hold the most powerful position in the world. The ballot box, not the threat of violence, is the answer, and the only one capable of carrying out those presidential duties in a rational manner is Clinton.

How anyone can now support Donald Trump? It is morally indefensible to do so.

Howard H. Gething
Montrose

Discrimination based on size

This is in response to Marlin Miller’s Aug. 13 letter to the editor “Letter sidesteps bigger issues” in which Mr. Miller found fault with Mike Gomez’ Aug. 8 letter “Are dogs now OK in Galleria?”

Mr. Miller wrote “…Mr. Gomez seems to feel the responsibility lies only with the Galleria and does not mention one word about the irresponsible dog owner. His disgust was aimed at the wrong party.”

One picks one’s battles, and I’ve decided to skip writing my opinion about the best way to keep the Galleria’s gleaming white floor free of dog poop. I’m writing only because Mr. Miller included such fervent criticism of Mr. Gomez for writing about this subject. Mr. Miller wrote, “There are much more important things to write to newspapers about, like, oh I don’t know, how about terrorism, lack of human rights, climate change, torture, child trafficking, the economy, political issues…. But Mr. Gomez’ focus is on dog poop. Granted, it would seem that my focus is on what Mr. Gomez focused on, but his lack of focus on the truly life-important topics of the day is really my focus. It’s emblematic of a self-absorbed society in a tailspin.”

I’ve known Mike Gomez since 2002. He has spent countless volunteer hours to work on local and national social justice issues — and to get others to work with him.

Yes, indeed, we live in a self-absorbed society, but Mr. Gomez happens to be a person who’s outstanding for spending time and energy to do what he can to make the world a better place — regarding large or small problems.

Nancy Kent
Glendale

On the issue of self-absorption

Thanks to Mike Gomez and his brother-in-law for taking obviously necessary corrective action about the dog poop in the Galleria. I want to let Marlin Miller know his objection to Mr. Gomez’ focus is totally inappropriate. Mailbag entries are limited in size, but it would be a rare subject that could be completely covered. Dog waste in a facility where many people, including small children, frequently visit and food is served is a public health hazard. Mr. Gomez chose to focus on the Galleria policy rather than chastising the individual who let their dog leave the mess. That seems a reasonable choice to me because that individual may not read the paper. It’s likely someone will make Galleria management aware of the letter. I think they would like to have people looking around at the shops and restaurants rather than having to watch where they step.

I’ve worked with Mr. Gomez for a number of years on peace, justice, education, community-police relations and ethnic harmony issues here in Glendale. The dog poop letter is just one small bit of activism on an issue that can be rapidly solved in a lifetime of work on larger social issues that seem to take decades if not centuries to improve.

What a shame Mr. Miller jumped to an erroneous conclusion and appears to believe he knows what other people should be doing with their time. Seems ironically self-absorbed to me.

Sharon Weisman
Glendale

Rebuttal to 64 putdown

Mario Guerra’s commentary piece Aug. 18 about Proposition 64 (“Blunt criticism of the pro-pot initiative”) includes a staggering number of false and deceptive statements. The first issue he brings up is the possibility of TV ads for cannabis products. Those ads are barred in all states by the FCC, which licenses all TV stations. The authors of the measure were well aware of that, and so they did not prohibit ads, instead allowing the proper authorities to continue existing policies as they currently do in all states. There will be no pot ads on TV in any of the states that legalize pot, the FCC ensures that.

Guerra brings up the specter of “Big Marijuana” and compares it to “Big Tobacco.” The problem with that myth is that Phillip Morris has income exceeding $10 billion; in other words one tobacco company is larger than all marijuana businesses combined. Not only that, but the marijuana businesses are small businesses. In most cases each storefront is a separate business. In 2010 the previous legalization effort, Proposition 19 failed partly due to opposition from the alcohol and pharmaceutical industries, who both viewed cannabis as a competitor to be squashed. Big Pharma in particular opposes cannabis because it is an affordable alternative to many prescription drugs, and has been shown to help people to greatly reduce their dosages of pain killers.

In the end Guerra states that even if you support legalization, Proposition 64 is “the wrong way to go.” The exact same claim was made six years ago to defeat Proposition 19, and it is still wrong. First of all, state and local governments will administer the process, and they have plenty of power and authority to fix problems that come up. Second, the current proposition was written by a group that included lawyers and officials who studied the progress over recent years in California and the other states on the same path. It already includes “best practices” and excludes clauses that have been problematic in the past.

The drug war is as much of a failure as alcohol prohibition was a century ago. Let’s stop procrastinating and end it this year. Vote yes on 64.

Scott Peer
Glendale