A Mr. Scott wrote a letter (Letters, 5/27) that was devoid of logical points or rebuttals to any of the points I made in an essay published in a previous VCReporter edition (Power to Speak, 5/6). It was critical of the anarchical perspective I took and of me personally.  Mr. Scott’s letter contained many pointless insinuations, snide innuendos and inaccurate suppositions that served to reveal nothing about his viewpoint. I will guess that Mr. Scott, based on the self-righteous tone and what meager content his letter contained, falls somewhere on the “left” side of today’s political spectrum. Based on this guess, I’ll comment on a couple of his pointless remarks.

First off, I will explain to Mr. Scott that the very existence of the limited-liability legal structure that corporations operate under is a government-granted privilege. It was also the governmental legal system that decided corporations should be treated like human beings under the law — so far so, that they’ve even been granted free speech rights now.  If Mr. Scott has a problem with corporations, by extension, he should have an even bigger problem with the system of government that created them and legally shields them (and their executives) from justice.

Next, I will remark on his comment about “sharing.” I’m not sure what Mr. Scott teaches his children about property rights, but I try to teach mine to respect the property of others, not to be so envious, covetous and consumed by greed at the wealth of others that they would ever succumb to the desire to steal. If you wish to borrow something, politely ask.  If turned down, be respectful of that person’s right to dispose of their property as they see fit. Remember — you have the same right. Since “sharing” is such a noble character trait in Mr. Scott’s opinion, I wonder how likely he would be to let a car-less stranger “share” his car; I wonder if he would “share” his home and refrigerator with homeless and hungry strangers; if we met on the street as strangers, I wonder if he would “share” the money in his pocket with me if I asked him to. I wonder if there is any situation in which Mr. Scott would decline a request from another person to “share” his personal belongings. Would that make him “greedy” like the Libertarians he so snidely derided? I wonder if Mr. Scott desires to keep the stuff he’s worked for, or if he’s a saint who has sworn off all claims to worldly possessions?

I’ll keep my “label,” Mr. Scott, thank you very much. Under that “label” will appear a person who believes in the morality of non-aggression, voluntary contracts, generosity and charity, humbleness, and who attempts to vigorously and consistently apply these principles as best the current world allows. What you won’t see is a person who applies pretty-sounding labels like “government,” “laws” and “the democratic process” to immoral and evil actions. Can you say the same? 

Shane Solano, Ventura

The hypocrisy of Palin
Re: Sarah Palin claims Obama in bed with BP

Sarah Palin is once again at her inconsistent and nonsensical best when she suggests that the Gulf oil cleanup is being impeded because President Obama is in bed with BP.

Somehow, even though BP sponsored her inauguration as Alaska governor in 2007, and her husband worked for BP, earning $93,000 in 2007, her association with BP is perfectly acceptable, whereas President Obama’s association with BP (if there is any) is suspect.

And somehow, even though in 2008 she described Obama as consorting with terrorists and is now criticizing him for consorting with oil corporations, she and her husband, Todd, managed to consort with both this year when Todd was sponsored for the Iron Dog race in Alaska by Citgo, the oil company run by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whom Sarah Palin considers to be a terrorist.   

Clive Leeman, Ojai

The era of consumption must end, or else …
While oil is a great lubrication for the moving parts of machines/vehicles, and gasoline is an excellent volatile substance to run our engines, the need for clean alternative energy has come.

The time is now because of the damage we have done and continue to do to the Earth’s precious eco-systems (air, water, soil, plant and animal life systems).

For nearly a century now, we have grossly polluted our Earth and, for some reason, expected nothing to change … but it has! And for the worse.

We have irresponsibly poured carbons into the air, non-recyclable materials/substances into the soil, and all sorts of pollutants into our water with irreversible changes to life as we know it.

The Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disasters have pushed into the public eye, but there are unfortunate disasters constantly occurring on a smaller scale all over the Earth at human hands in the name of commerce as we know it.

We need to change our consumption needs to be “green” and “clean.”

The old days of massive use and consumption of polluting elements that are unhealthy to our Earth and our very survival must come to an end in order for the new order of consumption to take its place.

We must, or it will kill the delicate balance of everything we need to sustain our planet.

Dr. and Mrs. Mark Strauss Simi Valley

Not falling for it
It has been reported that Audra Strickland is wondering why she lost the election by such a large margin. Maybe it’s that she ran a negative campaign. Maybe it’s that she allowed the local Republican Party to run a roughshod over her campaign with money and influence. Maybe it’s because she is prone to running for any office that will issue her a paycheck. Or maybe it’s that she’s not available for comment so darned often.

Really, it shouldn’t be a surprise to her, Mike Osborn or the Ventura County Republican Central Committee. Voters are smarter than that.

Maybe one day, they’ll all learn that.

F. Bundy, Camarillo

Frustration in El Rio
Re: “Angry El Rio parents determined to shake up the school board” (News, 6/03)
This not-so superintendent has “lost it.” She states, “No number of vigils, no misleading flyers, no bullying tactics are going to change that” (referring to her “good work”). She also talks about “corrupt bullies.” OK, let’s start there. Is she referring to herself, the shoe thief, or the ex-board member (and one-time president) now serving 17 years for child molestation including impregnating his own step-daughter?

No misleading flyers must refer to the one the district sent out saying that was no planned district event scheduled for the night of the vigil. That would be more than 2,000 flyers (they were printed on half-sheets) printed on district copy machines when some schools have severe paper/supplies shortages and others have broken down copy machines. No bullying tactics might refer to a “teacher” hired mid-year, whose jobs seems to try and break up the teacher’s union, takes notes at union meetings and file lawsuits for the show maven. Oh, by the way, this person was fired and “escorted” out of the district office last year when she worked as an administrator. Or the bullying tactics might refer to a principal who told his or her staff they were legally not allowed to talk about the less than supper’s shoe stealing spree. She also called the police when parents were legally handing out flyers for the vigil. She also told parents at a PTA meeting that they had the shoplifter confused above mentioned board member when a parent asked about supporting the super. This principal is now headed to the district office to be the next assistant superintendent in charge of human resources with a nice raise for her efforts, I’m sure. I believe this would address the “politics” part.

The more she speaks, the more she puts her foot in her mouth. Put on your boots, Sherri, and take a walk back from where you came.

A very concerned teacher

P.S. I am sorry I cannot leave my name for fear of retribution. The views are shared by the “moral” majority!