In response to Bill Michel's letter: I take offense to his "tea baggers" comment. Does he really think that gun owners and enthusiasts are are all right-wing tea party nutcases? How uninformed and sad. If you look at the demographics of gun owners you will find it spread over the entire political spectrum. He really should do his homework.
The fact is that a simple gun safe could have prevented access to the weapons used in the Newtown tragedy. As for carnage, at 40,000 deaths a year is he ready for the government to take away his car? I didn't think so.
Letter writer's rhetoric 'ignorant and bigoted'
Bill Michel's letter to the editor (How do local officials feel about gun violence?, Voice, Dec. 21) closes with a question for the "tea baggers." He asks, "Do you really think that you can stockpile enough weapons to protect you from a drone strike?" The paragraph apparently was included solely to disparage and mock Tea Party members and conservatives.
Ignorant and bigoted rhetoric such as this does nothing to promote a serious and civil discussion on important issues. Unfortunately name-calling and ad hominem attacks seem to be favored by the left as a way to close off debate. When you can't win an argument with facts or persuasion, try to win it by tearing down your opponent.
In support of Cuesta Annex flood basin
In her letter last week, Cynthia Riordan claims opponents of the Cuesta Annex flood basin have not "misled or exaggerated" concerns and have not been "inventing ones such as the destruction of oak trees." Yet Ms. Riordan sent a letter to the editor on July 13, 2012, in which she wrote that the "Mountain View City Council is the largest killer of trees in the city" because they support the Cuesta Annex flood basin. She warned that the Annex will be "severely affected" by "the trees that will be lost here." Since the plan calls for only one heritage tree to be removed, I think it is fair to say her warnings were a misleading exaggeration.
In his letter, Michael Hayden says he is "not trying to deceive, but just present the facts" when he writes about the outside engineering firm's (Multech) report on the flood project. But at the Nov. 20 water district board meeting, the Multech representative vehemently objected to Mr. Hayden's representation of the firm's findings.
At the same meeting, the water district hydrologists responded to Mr. Hayden's comments on the flow data and explained why downstream gauges do not reflect the true 100-year-flood potential. So I don't think Mr. Hayden is presenting all or only the facts.
For a true sense of the flooding potential in California and Mountain View, people should look at the current issue of Scientific American (articles also on the web) where experts describe the megafloods that occur here every 100 to 200 years. While the Annex basin would not be adequate to prevent the kind of flood we saw in 1861, it would mitigate the damage of this and lesser floods that the article suggests may become more frequent with climate change.