|
|
Letters To The Editor
Ranked
voting To the editor:
SMRR’s endorsement process on Sunday underscored some downsides to the
voting system in use by the organization. I would like to encourage
SMRR’s members to consider: What if you were allowed to rank your
first, second, third, etc. preferences when you voted? Such a system,
called Choice Voting, has been used in Cambridge, Massachusetts since
1941. SMRR’s endorsement process, like Santa Monica’s elections, would
be made more equitable by the adoption of Choice Voting.
Members of SMRR are allotted as many votes as there are seats to be
filled. However, members are compelled to withhold some of those
votes, since a vote for your favorite candidate becomes less effective
if you cast your remaining votes. When voters “undervote,” they are
not giving a full picture of their political preferences. A recent
study performed by Santa Monica Ranked Voting found that in the last
three City Council elections, over one third of Santa Monicans have
consistently undervoted. With Choice Voting, voters are free to rank
all of the candidates without concern that their first choice vote
will be weakened by subsequent rankings.
In addition, the SMRR endorsement process involves a series of
separate runoff elections when not enough candidates have reached the
55% threshold in the first round. This unnecessarily prolongs the
meeting, and as people leave, fewer people are left to decide the
eventual winners. With ranked voting, runoffs are held instantly,
since voters indicate their first choice and their runoff choices all
on the same ballot. San Francisco will use ranked voting for the first
time this November, having eliminated its costly, separate runoff
elections.
In 1992, a city charter review commission recommended Choice Voting
for Santa Monica’s regular city council elections, but it was not
adopted at that time. SMRR could move Santa Monica a significant step
closer to Choice Voting in Santa Monica by considering its adoption
for its own endorsement process.
More information about ranked voting can be found at
www.smrankedvoting.org.
Amy Connolly
Co-Founder, Santa Monica Ranked
Voting
Vet opposes
declawing
To the editor:
As a veterinarian, I urge the Santa Monica City Council to adopt a ban
on cat declawing that was called for by nearly two dozen Santa Monica
residents at a recent City Council meeting. We like to think of
ourselves as enlightened and humane, but the United States is one of
the few “civilized” nations in the world that has not denounced or
outlawed this inhumane practice.
It is likely that most people would never willingly submit their pets
to declawing if they knew what this procedure really entails. This is
not a manicure, nor is it simply a matter of removing the nails. It is
an amputation. Actually, it is 10 separate amputations. A cat’s claws
are so closely connected to the bone that to remove them, the last
bone of the toe also must be removed. Whether performed by clippers,
scalpel or laser, it is equivalent to amputating the last joint of
each of your own fingers.
Declawing is a serious and painful surgery, and it is performed for
the sole reason of convenience for people who wish to protect their
sofas and drapes. It has no benefit to the cat and, in fact, is
detrimental. A cat’s anatomy is perfectly configured to give it the
balance and agility we associate with these creatures. Amputation of
the last digit in each toe alters this anatomical configuration and
can lead to serious physical problems, including lameness and
arthritis.
One of the arguments against a ban on declawing is the claim that more
cats will be abandoned at shelters by people who won’t tolerate their
scratching behavior. But statistics show the primary behavioral reason
for cat abandonment is litter-box avoidance, a problem often caused by
declawing surgery. Many declawed cats stop using their litter box due
to the pain they now have in their feet, and they begin to urinate in
other areas of the house. I know many veterinarians who have been
asked to euthanize a cat because of this exact scenario.
Another specious argument suggests that if it’s all right to spay or
neuter your cat, why not declaw? Spaying and neutering confer definite
health benefits to cats, but primarily serve to control
overpopulation. Currently, it is estimated that 4 million to 6 million
pets are destroyed in U.S. animal shelters annually because there are
not enough homes for all of them. Clearly, spaying and neutering are
beneficial for the well-being of entire pet population, whereas
declawing is harmful and a procedure devised solely for human
expediency.
As for declawing being a benefit to the immunocompromised and elderly,
remember that these people are still susceptible to cat bites. Indeed,
many cats start biting after they have been declawed. Deprived of
their first line of defense - their claws - they use their teeth
instead. A kinder and very effective solution is the use of vinyl nail
caps that can be glued over the claws and that are completely humane.
Nail caps, regular nail trimming, use of scratching posts and
behavioral training are all practical alternatives to surgical
declawing.
Declawing is largely an American and Canadian peculiarity. Most
European countries as well as Australia, New Zealand and Brazil have
banned declawing or deemed it an inhumane procedure. The British
veterinary society calls declawing “unacceptable” and an “unnecessary
mutilation.” You need only witness this surgery to realize that they
are right. The Humane Society of the United States, The Association of
Veterinarians for Animal Rights, and many other animal welfare
organizations condemn declawing. A ban on declawing in Santa Monica
could be an important first step to end this archaic and unnecessary
practice.
Jennifer Conrad, DVM
Santa Monica
Democracy
at work
To the editor:
The same day an Iraqi delegation of civic and community leaders was
refused entry into the Memphis City Hall, I had the privilege of
hosting a group of Haitian civic and political leaders in my West L.A.
office.
Both groups of leaders were invited and sponsored by our State
Department.
My Haitian visitors set aside any preconceptions they may have had and
asked insightful questions about my work as a community organizer, as
a leader for women’s and consumers’ rights and as a Democratic Party
activist. They had just visited with Green Party leaders and were on
their way to meet a Republican political consultant. I was proud to
represent my country and our democratic process.
Imagine my disgust to read an AP brief that Memphis City Council
Chairman, Joe Brown, decided it was too dangerous to let the Iraqi
leaders tour his community’s city hall and that he would “evacuate the
building and bring in the bomb squads” if the group entered.
Seems to me, Chairman Brown, if we expect our democracy to work in
other countries, we have to work democracy in our own.
Kelly Hayes-Raitt
Santa Monica
Unfair
treatment
To the editor:
I am writing to you because I believe the city of Santa Monica and the
Parking Violations Bureau has dealt unfairly with me in regards to a
parking citation that I received last November 18th.
While I do not deny that I was indeed wrongly parked in a residential
area, I never received a ticket on my window and, having been out of
town the subsequent week, I was not at home to get the notice of my
infraction. I returned on December 18th, the day my ticket was due. I
immediately sent out the $47 for the infraction, along with an
explanation and an apology for my tardiness. I also enclosed with my
payment my flight itinerary to show that I was indeed out of town,
could only have received the notice while away and asked to please be
excused from the remaining $47 late penalty.
What followed was a round of mail and then a hearing. While I thank
the city for allowing me to state my case after the expiration, I
don’t feel like the gentleman who held my hearing on May 12 at 1:45
p.m. gave fair consideration to my explanation. He perfunctorily let
me state my case, did not look at my documents, asked me no questions
and then immediately rushed me out of the office.
The facts are that I never received a ticket on my window. I am not
blaming the Parking Enforcement Officer for this; I am simply stating
the truth. I willingly paid my fine. I feel that given the evidence it
was wrong for the Parking Violations Bureau to still charge me the
exorbitant late fee of $47. This is a financial hit that was
unnecessary and hurts me in a time when I am experiencing unemployment
hardship. I am a caring citizen, and I pay my fines; however, I do not
feel like the City of Santa Monica gives fair regard in these matters.
$47 may not seem like a lot of money to some, but I assure you it is
to me.
Mark Blubaugh
Redondo Beach
Pirates
Aren’t
To the editor:
The record companies tell us that music “pirates” are “stealing” songs
online, but that version of the story ignores reality and blindly
parrots Hollywood spin. The reality: when you pay $16 for a CD, the
musician gets about $1 — if he’s lucky. Many major label artists get
nothing at all.
The “Big 5” major labels pay radio stations to play their songs (and
only their songs). Payola, once a scandal, is now standard practice,
and the Big 5 use their control of radio playlists to force terrible
contracts on musicians.
The major labels have been scamming musicians for decades so their
claim that filesharing hurts artists rings hollow. These companies’
real worry is that the internet makes them unnecessary.
There’s no justification for lawsuits against families: a Voluntary
Collective License (VCL) system would let internet providers offer
“all-you-can-eat” downloads for a flat fee of $5/month, and labels
would get paid for each song. Total revenue would exceed what the
major labels currently earn, but they’ll never accept it. Why? Because
the new system would make it easy to be a successful musician without
signing a major label contract.
Joel Tokunaga
West L.A. |
|
