We encourage readers to submit letters to the editor on issues of interest to East Valley residents. Submissions should be no longer than 300 words, factually accurate and original thoughts of the writer. Please be brief and include name, address, city and phone number for verification. Letters and call-in comments may be edited for clarity and length.
Dogged cooperation with Gold Canyon
I read with great interest J. Craig Anderson’s Dec. 4 article (“A.J. leaders propose regional council”), as well as your editorial in the Dec. 9 edition. I wanted to put in perspective other areas where these neighboring communities are working in concert for the benefit of all residents living at the foothills of the majestic Superstition Mountain.
Apache Junction acquired 200 acres in Silly Mountain from the Bureau of Land Management. One of the requirements from BLM was that the city had to develop a master plan and the land had to be for public use. The city not only asked the residents of the city for ideas on what they would like to see in this future park, but other groups and organizations outside their city limits were also asked for input.
The first of these meetings was in October at the Apache Junction Parks and Recreation Commission. Many groups were represented from both sides of the fence — equestrian organizations, Superstition Area Land Trust, the MOMs Club of Gold Canyon, etc. Our organization, Gold Canyon Dog Owners Group, was one of the groups present, our suggestion was a three-acre off-leash dog park at that location. There have been three public meetings since which the public (residents and non- residents of the city) attended and voiced their wishes and opinions. At an upcoming Feb. 6 meeting, J2 Design will present its recommendations for a master plan. This is only the first step before final approval by the commission and City Council.
We are very grateful to the leadership of Apache Junction in their decision to include their neighbors in the Silly Mountain Park project.
PRESIDENT, GOLD CANYON DOG OWNERS GROUP
Right name at right time
You Tribune writers got it wrong one more time. I don’t care how much you pound on Rep. Harry Mitchell, he is right about this. As a Democrat, he should be especially skilled with names, specifically renaming buildings, mountain peaks, etc. — that is what Democrats do best.
If we should build a new aircraft carrier, and name it the USS Arizona, I would expect the Tribune and other newspapers to write it up as a warship built to remind our enemies what happens to them when they make war on us.
The Japanese have never apologized for Pearl Harbor. I don’t think they are sorry for Pearl Harbor. I think they are sorry they lost the war.
What qualifies Clinton?
Why Hillary for president? I have a big dilemma, trying to figure out why Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner and why she is telling us how qualified she is to be president. “Things are not good, we can do better.” That is her favorite line. How to do better and answering questions is not her favorite thing at all. It is puzzling.
OK, so she lived in the White House for eight years; that is good. She did not accomplish anything, not even her health care project; that is not good. Oh, my goodness, I totally forgot, she was excellent at covering up Bill’s indiscretions for eight years. Now that is good, or is it? Well, I am right where I started — big dilemma.
SLOUCHING TOWARD OLIGARCHY
Webster’s Dictionary defines oligarchy as “government by a few, especially a small group of class. The persons of families making up such a group or class.” It seems that the U.S. presidency is now on the edge of losing its meaning as a democratic institution and developing into an oligarchy. Are we slowly drifting toward an elite ruling group of families?
The candidacy of Hillary Clinton raises the disturbing specter of having the United States governed by only two families for 28 years, an entire generation; and then there is Jeb Bush waiting in the wings.
Whatever our politics, we should recognize that any type of “oligarchy” is not in our best interests. We had a constitutional amendment to limit the terms to eight years. De we need another one to prohibit family members from extending their control?
The Iraq war demonstrates the disturbing dangers we face. We may never know the exact influence that Papa Bush’s successes and failures in the first Gulf War had on the decisions that led George W. to take us into Iraq. With many of the same top policy makers in both Bush administrations, it is almost certain that the decisions made in the first Gulf War had a direct and decisive impact on the decisions on Iraq. We may never know for sure, but it probably would have been better not to put another Bush in the White House.
The Bush example should give us clear warning about the Clintons. Think about Bill Clinton’s administration. He is extremely defensive and antagonistic toward any present-day criticism of his African policies in the Sudan, his gullibility over the North Korean nuclear program and Hillary’s run at nationalizing health insurance. Is it probable that these attitudes would have a direct influence on a Hillary administration?
All students should be fed
I strongly believe if our schools feed one child, they should feel all of them. Allow every single child the opportunity to sign up for regular, daily means. If they do not sign up, but find themselves without food or money, never, ever refuse to feed a child that has not enrolled.
Even children of affluent families can have a very sick parent, alcoholic parents, out-of-town parents. There are numerous reasons why a child might not have a lunch or lunch money temporarily. No hungry child should have to watch other children eating, and no hungry child should be turned away. As a taxpayer, I consider this grounds for a lawsuit.
If this is just a part of class warfare being thrust upon us, and even promoted and condoned by politicians, it should not extend to or include hungry children.