Recall Schwarzenegger, Problems at SF Zoo ...
by , 2008-02-25
Go, Randy! As I recall, Schwarzenegger was used by the energy moguls to get rid of Davis, with Schwarzenegger cutting a deal in a Los Angeles hotel room promising not to pursue the court suit for repayment to California of the millions lost in the energy debacle. Perhaps this history should be clarified and brought back to the attention of the public. (Also, I seem to remember a slick trick in the recall election, which confounded the issues of recall and election by giving voters the choice of voting to recall Davis but did not list him as a candidate on the ballot for Governor, which he should have been. I suppose this is neither here nor there, but I still remember my anger at feeling manipulated unfairly (as I also did in the case of the rousting of Kevin Shelley because the powers that be didn't like his position re voting machines. Who are these clever Rove-type operators here in California?)
Deetje Boler
Randy Shaw's idea of recalling Governor Schwarzenegger is morally correct and very tempting, but such an attempt would fail badly. First, Schwarzenegger is the most popular politician in California. There is no realistic scenario under which a majority of California voters would vote to recall him, despite OUR dislike for him. Second, based on voting results over the past 20 years, whether progressives and radicals like it or not the large majority of California voters are quite obviously opposed to taxes, even on the rich. There's no way those voters are going to recall someone based on a refusal to raise taxes. While the anti-tax position of the majority of voters in this state is disgusting and is repugnant to progressive and radical values, we need to recognize its reality in order to effectively deal with it. Recalling Schwarzenegger is a nice pipe dream, but that's all it is.
What really needs to be done is a major education campaign in order to convince the anti-tax people that it's in the interests of the state as a whole, which includes them, to tax the wealthy, including everyone who makes $100,000 or more, in order to pay for needed services. Our efforts in this regard would reap much greater rewards than a useless attempt to recall a governor, who is extremely popular with an electorate that hates taxes, for not raising taxes.
Jeff Hoffman
San Francisco
Dear Editor:
Your February 22nd story “Is it Time to Recall Governor Schwarzenegger?” has to be one of the most absurd ideas I’ve heard in some time. First, the statewide Field Poll two months ago showed the governor with a 60 percent approval rating with that same poll showing voters have more confidence in the governor to handle the state budget then they do the spending addicts in the Legislature. Your not going to recall anybody with a 60 percent approval rating.
Second, recalling the governor over a policy dispute, in this case his refusal to raise taxes would be an abuse of the recall process as was with the Gray Davis recall. The recall process was put into the state constitution to remove public officials from office who had engaged in serious criminal misconduct or malfeasance. You may not like the governors no new taxes position but that hardly rises to the threshold of malfeasance or misconduct in office and he has a right to serve out the term of office he was ELECTED to.
Third, I would love to see you try to recall the governor on the basis that he won’t raise taxes. I have yet to see anyone wage a successful electoral campaign on the basis of raising taxes, especially with the state and the nation are on verge of recession. The voters just rejected a bond measure for community colleges. Doesn’t that tell you something?
The only people who will benefit from this recall effort would be the California Republican Party. If anything would jumpstart their fundraising and breathe life into their party it would be a tax raising recall. As Dirty Harry would say “Go ahead – make my day.”
Mr. E.F. Sullivan
San Francisco
To the Editor:
The media is swarming the San Francisco Zoo's "renovated" Big Cat Exhibit excited about it's reopening. The renovations include a new four foot glass wall and electric fencing that cost $1.7 million. Glass and electric fencing is not enough. San Francisco Zoo must address the bigger problems facing its big cats and many of it's other animals. San Francisco city officials must take a hard look at current management practices.
The millions of dollars in safety upgrades at the San Francisco Zoo could built a brand new facility that is better for the big cats and safer for the public.The city must take immediate action to help the lions and tigers and protect the public.
No Lion House is a new campaign started by Citizens Lobbying for Animals in Zoos (CLAZ). The campaign has a four part plan for the Zoo's Big Cats. Visit the plan at http://nolionhouse.com/Campaign_.html
No Lion House is the first in a series of campaigns that will dramatically alter the ethos and master plan at the San Francisco Zoo. Soon CLAZ will release a Zoo Manifesto that will outline changes that must occur.
No more business as usually. It's time that the city create a zoo that we can be proud of.
With 100 acres of zoo land there is amazing potential. As a progressive city, the San Francisco Zoo should be world renowned for its animal welfare not for it's substandard conditions that have lead to the killing and mauling of zoo visitors.
Now is the time for major change at San Francisco Zoo.
Justin Barker
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link:
rshaw@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)