Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/17586
6A – Daily News – Saturday, October 9, 2010 Opinion Traffic idea Editor: D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Instead of fighting over who pays the overtime to the police for traffic control for events at the fair- grounds; why not install a traffic light? Why not charge the people driving into the event a dollar per car. Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 There are several events every year that draw several thousand cars. You should be able to pay for a light in a couple of years. This could be engineered fairly easily as a three way light and various non-profit groups could collect the fee at the gate for a dime a car for their organization. The FFA, 4H, Boy Scouts, YMCA you name 'em could use a little cash in the bank. You don't need to hand out parking tickets. You drive in the gate, get in one of several lines to keep the traffic moving off the street on green, hand the kid a dol- lar and go park. Keep it simple. You wouldn't have to use the light all the time. Just turn it on when there's an event. This would- n't disrupt every-day traffic on Antelope Blvd., but would control fairgrounds access and egress when needed. The other bonus? You release the police to do police work. Standing on a comer waving at cars is not police work and doesn't require a person, or several per- sons getting God knows how many dollars an hour on time and a half. Fred Boest, Red Bluff Smokes, hemp Editor: Doom, despair and a host of maladies are in store for us once marijuana is decriminalized in this State. At least that is Mr. Minton’s prediction (in his Oct. 8 letter to the editor). “It’s going to make us a lot dumber, filthier, poorer, meaner. Crime rates will rise because so many of us are against something so dopey.” Don’t know about you but, for the life of me I couldn’t make any sense out of that state- ment. Alcohol was legalized again in 1933, so is everyone in this country an alcoholic today because of the 21st Amendment? Regular cigarette smoking has never been completely banned in this country, but do we all smoke? The idea that disaster is immi- nent simply if marijuana becomes legal is ludicrous. Actually this inference is not only idiotic, it is insulting, saying even if marijuana smoke may nauseate you now, if legalized, you will not be able to resist addition to it. Joseph McNamara, former head of the San Jose Police Department, called prop 19 a “game-changer” that would allow police agencies to devote more resources to fighting other crimes and undercut criminal syndicates Your Turn that illegal marijuana sales fund. He also said there were “ethical and legal reasons that restrict the ability of police chiefs and officers to speak out” in support of legal- ization of marijuana. The legalizing of a herb will do much more than allow some to grow and smoke their favorite smokes without being hassled by local or state cops. It will unlock the economical floodgates associated with hemp. Anything the petrol-chemical corporations can produce can be produced better and safer with hemp. Hemp production would save our pristine forests, for hemp makes a for superior paper. Quali- ty garments can and are made from hemp. No, the legalization of marijua- na won’t bring calamity but it has the potential for a good burst of prosperity. Orval Strong, Gerber Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (415) 403-0100. Fax (202) 224- 0454. A profusion of confusion, part two Commentary Before this series was interrupt- ed by the last developments in the City Hall “laughorium”, we dis- cussed obvious areas of unclarity, confusion, and discretion within our state political system. On the federal level there is confusion as well. The confusion derives from the fact that even 220 years later we are unsure just what our vener- ated Constitution means. According to Pulitzer Prize winning Constitutional scholar and historian, Jack Rakove, “the framers [of the Constitution] grant- ed concessions to every interest that had a voice in Philadelphia…” In spite of our veneration of the Constitution, it is therefore not a clear document on many issues, and it certainly does not live up to the high sounding rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence. Some of its core principles have had to be coaxed out over the years to make them applicable to all of us. In other words the Constitution was the product of the usual sausage-works that spins out legis- lation; although we revere our Founding Fathers, when push came to shove they were pragmat- ic politicians. We seem to suffer from period- ic outcries against activist judges, but the principle of judicial review has been with us from the begin- ning of our republic, and the process of judicial review has helped us clarify the meaning of the Constitution. It has helped us define, refine, and reform the pecu- liarly mixed system of government we have today. The need for judicial review was apparent even under The Arti- cles of Confederation, our govern- ing document which preceded the Constitution. Although it was assumed, for example, that those Articles of Confederation granted Congress the authority to approve treaties, those Articles did not con- cretely state that such treaties could override state laws. (Does “states rights” sound like a familiar issue?) The landmark case of Rutgers vs. Waddington established the power of the Congress, under the Articles, to make foreign treaties that over- rode state law, and it established the concept of the judicial review of legislative acts, all before the adoption of our Constitution. That concept of judicial review was incorporated by the framers into our Constitution. Conflicts between our federal government and the states have been with us ever since, as has the judicial review of laws. So-called “activist judges” are following the path cre- ated even before the Constitution itself was written, and embodied by the so-called and revered Founding Fathers. The issue of state representation was a focal point during the debates by the Constitutional framers. Small states wanted an equal vote with large states. The creation of a two house legislature and the inclusion of the three-fifths clause regarding slaves were both political compromises made to sat- isfy small states and slave states and to assure the Constitution would be ratified by all the former colonies; northern states benefited from that compro- mise as well. Although today’s Senate seems undemocratic and bizarre at times, one of its central purposes was to keep things from getting out of control, to protect minority interests from the majori- ty, and avoid precipitously rushing ahead with things before reason could catch up. The Senate has cer- tainly embraced that role, and it has thrived on doing nothing slowly. Of course things have changed since the late eighteenth century. Our nation has expanded from shoreline colonies to a shore to shore country of over 330 million people and fifty states; with the ter- rible exception of our Civil War, we have maintained relative peace and order. Our progress has been filled with stress, but for the most part that stress has spurred the cre- ative process which has led to the USA we know; while some want to return to the “good old days”, most of us know those were only good in retrospect. I often relate seemingly fond stories about my time in the Army, but my wife reminds me my letters to her at that time did not paint such a rosy picture. The interstate com- merce clause of the Con- stitution has often been used by the Federal Gov- ernment to extend its authority over many areas; there was much conflict about this during the first half of the 20th century, particularly dur- ing Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. This time, however, other states are using it to squash attempts by Cali- fornia to lead in the so-called “green revolution”, asserting Cali- fornia is usurping federal authority. At least three states are making noises about suing California because of our so-called “green” laws, which they claim interfere with interstate commerce, an area the Constitution abdicates to the Federal Government, not the states. Those states bringing the suit may be victims of getting what they wish for if the federal government decides it should impose new, tougher standards. Joe Harrop Apparently some oil companies are also sup- porting passage of Proposition 23. Accord- ing to them, when the times are tough you should avoid the neces- sary cost of progress. Of course, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and British Petroleum may have gotten into some hot water for avoiding the real cost of doing business correctly and safely. PG&E, of course, chose to spend $49 million on trying to Their suit will follow if we, the electorate, defeat Proposition 23 in November. Proposition 23 would stop the implementation of AB 32. (Both the Democratic and Republi- can candidates for Governor have taken positions against Proposition 23.) This is a case where states are asking for federal control. That law, the so-called Global Warming Solutions Act, is supposed to cre- ate “the first-in-the-world compre- hensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” People got excited when California adopted emission controls and gas mileage standards, but those mea- sures were upheld by the federal government; one wonders if the threatened lawsuit will prevail or if it is a ruse to confuse our voters. fool us last June; according to my math, that amount would have equaled over $1000 per mile for the inspection of their 48,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines. We still do not know all the short cuts in drilling and safety taken by BP, but we have learned they are good at assigning blame. Who says we should run the gov- ernment like big business? maybe we do. Or Things may change, but human nature remains constant, and that is one reason why we have so much complaining. Our current com- plaints echo complaints that have been heard for over 200 years. Although our current complaints are not new, it seems like stressful economic times seem to bring out the loudest and most forceful com- plainers. Our republican democra- cy is “loose, shaggy, and ineffi- cient, full of redundancy and con- flicting goals”, according to Nicholas Lehmann. As such it breeds impatience and anger; we will look at some of that next week barring further interruptions from City Hall. Joe Harrop can be reached at DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net.