Who would want to be president?
EDITOR: Mr. Atkinson’s idea of a Mr. Rogers presidency got me thinking. I’ve always thought there is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who actually wants that job. Mr. Rogers certainly would have never wanted it, knowing the immensity and gravity of every decision affecting hundreds of millions of people at home and around the world. What kind of narcissistic egomaniac would make hundreds of promises and raise millions of dollars for that kind of pressure? The answer makes me shiver. So if I had my way, wanting the job would be a disqualification.
The last President we had that did not want the job was James Garfield in 1881. He seemed like a decent fellow, saying in his only speech after being nominated, “I do not enter upon controverted questions. The time, the place, the situation forbid it” and vowed “to speak only of those themes that elevate us all.” That’s it. No other speeches, or bloviating, or windbag promises. What an oasis from today’s toxic process that would chew an honest broker to bits. In fact, according to 538.com, which tracks such things, in 2014, only 4% of Americans believed most politicians told the truth most of the time. And since then, is there any reason to think that number rose? So why bother?
Let’s ask a sampling of Americans to name good people they know of, people they would trust and confide in. Only five such known people would be the candidates and the election would be a request for the popular-vote winner to serve despite their impending horror. Would they do it for the good of the country?
Oh but poor James Garfield was shot two months into his presidency and died six months later when his doctor refused to accept germ theory, couldn’t find the bullet and finally called on Alexander Graham Bell to try out his new X-ray machine. Alas, Bell didn’t consider the metal bed springs beneath the expiring Garfield and had only scrambled results. Maybe poor Garfield should not have been cajoled into the presidency after all. Ah well, bring on the primaries and may the Mr. Rogerses of the world happily live in peace.
John Grech
El Molino History Teacher
What’s John Necker’s problem?
EDITOR: In reaction to the proposed Climate Emergency Resolution, considered by City Council on Nov. 19, John Necker wrote (Gang of Five, Nov. 28) that Sebastopol will construct a resolution “…to shame the rest of the world into following our lead and thereby saving the planet.”
John must have missed Greta Thunberg’s intentional shaming of United Nations leaders at the September climate summit in New York, which drew applause from around the world. Perhaps he has also overlooked the growing youth forces at work under the banners of Extinction Rebellion, Sunrise Movement and Ende Gelände.
Sebastopol, by comparison, is following a greater lead.
Recent news informs that the European Union will ban single-use plastics by 2021; the band Coldplay has stopped touring “as pop music tries to go green;” the famous Glastonbury Festival (UK) operated as a “zero waste” event this year; and a financial services company in Finland has developed an app to track the carbon footprint of shopping.
The state of California has long been in the news for enacting legislation (SB 1383) that requires the reduction of methane emissions by diverting food waste to compost facilities. Sebastopol is granted a voice in Sacramento, but I don’t believe our city shamed state leadership into producing this drawdown-style methane solution.
I attend meetings and find that our council operates politely and democratically, allowing citizens of all viewpoints to speak their truth, whatever that may be. Council demonstrates tremendous poise when facing harsh (and often-misdirected) criticism, and they spend volunteer committee hours in addition to council meetings to further deliberate the details of the issues brought to them. All of their work is transparent and available to those who wish to follow along.
Response to Sonoma West articles on the Climate Emergency Resolution and new Zero-Waste Events requirements was overwhelmingly congratulatory. The public at-large seems to find nothing “draconian” in receiving take-out food in a compostable container or their beverage in a reusable ceramic mug.
Cynthia Albers
Sebastopol
