Support for ending the use of torture

Margaret Morris (Power to Speak, 6/18) wrote an argument against torture based on all of the logical reasons normally put forth. They are not why we have the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, and why torture has been prohibited in the U. S. military since George Washington in the Revolutionary War.

We don’t torture because of who we are and what this great nation stands for. George Washington wrote repeated letters to Gen. Howe complaining of the treatment of American prisoners taken by the British. They were treated terribly, cramped in ships anchored in the mud of New York harbor, subjected to summary executions, and otherwise mistreated.

When American forces captured Hessian troops, Washington very publicly told his staff that we were fighting for the rights of all men and could not deny those rights to our enemies. He then wrote a letter, which he publicly posted, to his various commanders directing that all prisoners should be treated such that none could complain of their treatment.

If you believe in democracy and the fundamental values of the United States Constitution, you must abhor torture in any form. Only those freighted little souls who would sacrifice their honor for fleeting visions of security would condone torture under any circumstance.

Norman Rodewald, Moorpark

Ways to reduce water waste
The articles by James Scolari and Paul Sisolak (Feature and News, 6/11, respectively) certainly brought home the importance of incorporating all methods of water conservation in our county and, conversely, examining areas of water waste.

One source of water waste rarely discussed is water softening. Softeners use 40-80 gallons to regenerate one to two times a week for an average family of four. Technology already exists to condition water without salt, eliminating the need for water softeners. Santa Clarita banned the use of salt-based water softeners. The L.A. Sanitation District Web site, www.lacsd.org has a list of salt-free water conditioning alternatives to choose from.

Reverse osmosis (RO) systems are another enormous source of water waste. Unfortunately RO is the most common choice for home drinking water. Yet it wastes three to four gallons for every gallon it produces! Whole-house water filtration can provide you with drinking quality water from every faucet with no waste. With some systems, the water from the cleaning cycle can even be routed for supplemental irrigation water — eliminating all water waste from your home water formula.

Whole-house systems are an investment, and not in everyone’s budget. For households with a smaller budget, there is the new “zero waste” reverse osmosis system. The discarded water is routed back into your hot water line, eliminating all waste. These systems can be purchased for just a bit more than a regular RO system, and will likely provide you with savings on your water bill.

Clean, conditioned water does not require water waste. Culligan, say your goodbyes!

Wendy Stroud, Oak View

Sierra Club saga continues…

Area organization accused of fraud
Al Sanders is one of the most successful men of action and mentors in the Los Padres Chapter, whether as a volunteer or employee. Chapter conservation chair for nearly 20 years, Al personifies love and commitment for Sierra Club ideals and issues. Taking a look at Alan’s old projects list shows that of 36 projects he worked on in Ormond Beach, he was an appellant on 19 and a litigant on one. Of the five projects in Port Hueneme, he was the appellant and the litigant in all five projects. Of the 13 projects in Ventura, Alan was the appellant on seven.

Alan has also been a dedicated recruiter when volunteering with the club for about 14 years. He became an employee of the club during the last six years.

Alan became a full-time volunteer for the Los Padres Chapter and discovered he was happier getting less pay and working full time for the Sierra Club. Alan is a “critical individual” because he takes Sierra Club work seriously and was as much a “critical individual” when a volunteer as he was as an employee.

Jim Childress is the most “critical individual” in the voter fraud scandal. A timeline of events shows that Joy Kobayashi and her election committee were scheduled to meet on January 4 to count the ballots. Janet and Joy showed up.

Childress was late or, perhaps, failed to show, and the ballots were counted without him. On January 19, 15 days after the winners were known, Childress sent e-mail to Joy: “Joy … just to let everyone know, I was not able to participate in the chapter vote counting because I was slightly late …. So I drove back to SB without seeing the ballots. I think that according to the bylaws this should invalidate the vote. Joy, I’d appreciate it if you would bring the ballots to the meeting so that I can see them. Jim”

Later on that day, Childress e-mailed Joy again: “Joy, I just reviewed the National document on Chapter and Excomm elections, which I have attached. It says that the election committee shall do certain things including counting ballots. No where is it stated that that there is a majority rule for the election committee. You are wrong, the election committee failed to meet …. The issue of last year is irrelevant. I apologized for what was a very regrettable oversight. If you had taken your responsibilities seriously as election chair, you would have obtained contact information from me …. Best, Jim”

Joy responds to Childress: “Jim, … If the Excom now decides that the election committee did not meet because you were not present, any member of any future election committee could invalidate an election by simply not showing up for the ballot count. The issue of last year and the year before when John Holroyd did not show up are totally relevant to this point. Joy” Kobayashi gave the ballots to Childress at the next ExCom meeting scheduled on January 22, 2009.

Was Childress the last person to have control of the ballots? Did his tally match Kobayashi? How long did he have them before he sent them to National? Are there some postal receipts and/or affidavits of what was mailed? Where are the ballots now? Who corrupted the ballots? Childress or Kobayashi or National? If it were Kobayashi, would she give the ballots of evidence over to Childress so willingly?

Nancy K. Taylor, Cedar Key, Fla.

The politics about conservation
It was sickening to see your report (News, 6/11) regarding the fight within the Sierra Club. Now we will be saddled with “damage control” due to Mike Stubblefield’s accusations. Study Stubblefield’s own campaign literature in the upcoming “Re-Run” Election for three Los Padres ExComm seats. He contradicts himself. He says one thing to one mailing list, and then says the opposite to the next mailing list.

Selling the “Big Lie” was made famous and infamous by the “Big” dictators of the 20th century, and that technique has been taught in advertising and public relations courses ever since. 

Stubblefield claims he “reduced chapter spending by $30,000.” That is pure sleight of hand. He did stop funding for the Ormond Project and, thereby, lost the matching funds of $30,000, making it a big loss for the fight to protect Ormond Beach of more than $60,000 per year. Then Stubblefield claims credit [for what was] clearly done by other members as having been done on “his watch.” But conveniently, he never claims credit for all of the bad things that have happened.

I believe that a majority of the Sespe Group Executive Committee would agree that Mike Stubblefield has been harmful to our efforts to protect Ormond Beach.

I also know, personally, how miserable he made Joy Kobayashi, by harping, nagging, phoning, etc., until she had to hire an attorney.  His accusations against Joy are laughable. In all my dealings with Joy, she has been “old-fashioned-honest,” honorable, hard-working, detail-oriented and observant of the rule of law.

Stubblefield’s accusations of ballot tampering make me wonder: Why were chapter members, especially the winning candidates, not allowed to view the ballots and to challenge the determinations made?  

Mr. Stubblefield has done great harm to Sierra Club by publicizing unproven accusations in the newspapers. I feel that we all were deceived by a clever false story spoon-fed to us over time. I cannot fathom what motivates Stubblefield. Does he enjoy ruining conservation causes and hurting innocent people?

Rose Leslye Stern, Sespe Group EXCOM, Oxnard