The purpose of this letter is to find out what the Sheriff’s department is going to do with the $300,000 they budgeted for new belt buckles? When I found this out from an article appearing in the March 14 edition of the LA Times, I was enraged, partly because of the money, which could have been more effectively used for more training, more vests, more Sheriffs, etc. but certainly not belt buckles.
This all started when a friend of mine had asked me to help Dana Middle School get money for new Marching Band Uniforms. The award-winning band had been using the same uniforms for over 15 years! They have new ones now, but are $50,000 in debt. I know that LAUSD has its own money, the City of LA has its own money and the County has its own money. However everyone keeps screaming poverty. Well it is no wonder: whether it is $3.00, $300, $300,000 or $300,000,000. It appears to me that we are just taking taxpayers money and using it willy-nilly. Whoever is in charge decides to use it for whatever they want.
As I later found out to add fuel to the fire, the Sheriffs are supposed to pay for their own uniforms. I have tried to get a response from Supervisor Hahn’s office. Without exaggeration, I have left over a dozen phone calls, hoping to get a response. So far, nothing.
In conclusion, with no disrespect to the Sheriffs, who I admire very much for their very difficult and sometimes thankless jobs, it seems to me that the money would be better spent on our youth to give them the respect and admiration they merit. To put this into perspective, all of children in last year’s marching band were younger than their uniforms.
Arthur Schaper’s Latest Rant
What is it with Random Lengths News? You guys are obsessed with me!
First, James Preston Allen says, “F—k you!” after I congratulated the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council for throwing him out of office.
Then Allen claims in a response to my last letter that my support for President Donald Trump does not deserve protection under the First Amendment — what a hypocrite!
Then in the latest edition of RLn, one of his (unpaid? uneducated?) reporters wrote about my imposing visit at Rep. Barragan’s — aka Cousin No-No — town hall.
To her shame, Congresswoman Nanette Barragan refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. My team and I forced her to do her basic civic duty.
You also forgot that was a town hall, and We the People had every right to denounce her lies about President Trump, his proposed budget and his other successful policies. You so conveniently ignore that Democratic and progressive activists all over California have been harassing Republican congressmen in their town halls. Now Democrats whine because they’re getting a taste of their own medicine?! Boo-hoo!
You also forgot to report that she shut people out of her town hall when she moved to the auditorium. Whatever happened to being a woman of the people, Cousin No-No?
And of course, there are more errata in your report.
We were not shut down in Ted Lieu’s town hall. We Trump supporters made front page news, and even a special place in Random Lengths (Fake!) News. Honestly, I take great pride in your calling me an “exhibitionist,” Mr. Allen. It’s actually called “exercising one’s rights,” although I recognize that such niceties are lost on regressive leftists such as your editorial board.
As for what happened at The Crazy Black Lady’s (Maxine Waters) town hall — I was repeatedly heckled and harassed by outrageous hatemongers — two of whom were brown “La Raza” supremacists and another crazy black lady who claimed to be 50,000 years old. Then I was removed for no good reason. Talk about tolerance.
By the way, you call me the leader. I am working with an incredible, diverse coalition of Californians who are fed up with the crime and corruption of the communist Democratic Party in this once golden State. If you have a problem with the First Amendment, then move to a communist country: no free speech, no press, but at least you would be out of job!
Arthur Christopher Schaper
Dear Mr. Schaper,
First off, while Random Lengths News does not shy away from having a progressive editorial stance, it is far from “a rag.” It is the only newspaper that has been published in the Harbor Area for more than 37 years, which says more about our publication than many more conservative publications in the area.
While we do believe that wealth distribution is an issue worth discussing, we also believe that marriage for everyone and life for everyone is worth defending as much as choice is worth defending.
Science, rather than “belief,” gears our stance on climate change, which we know impacts future LIVES.
Our reporting may not command a great deal of respect from you, and it’s OK. Your writing, with all of its typos, does not command much respect from us, either.
Over the past several years, we have provided you with quite enough free speech in this newspaper — some might argue too much — but we feel it is our duty to provide you and others with enough free expression so that the common citizen can judge for themselves the value of your positions.
It is obvious to us that what you are attempting to do by disrupting town hall meetings and insulting us, all you ae really trying to do is gain personal notoriety so as to publicly express your unpopular, prejudiced ideas without having to actually argue and defend your positions in either a rational or civil manner.
When #45 finally goes down in a firestorm of self-inflicted Twitter conflicts and emoluments violations — if not conspiracies — all of your arguments will be dumped in the political trash can with him. However, if you succeed with your stated agenda, we might as well kiss our beloved democracy goodbye, because you’d be the last person to actually defend anyone else’s right to free speech or free expression.
Response to My Comment
(Published in the May 11 edition of Random Lengths News)
I was not going to respond to your remarks to my [last] letter but I had to. I’m convinced that your rationalization is the problem, not a solution for America’s problems. What you are advocating is two separate systems by which to judge people. That is a wrong rationalization and you are in a position to influence your readers.
Example of one of these systems: If a doctor doesn’t follow set scientific procedures and botches an operation, you can hold him accountable for him setting his own standards; you can sue him.
The other example is: Deity believers, regardless of what scientific facts there are to prove them wrong, have the right to think (use their analytical skills) any way they want. Fox News and conservative talk radio (deity believers) have this right and they have very warped, dark interpretations of the facts. They don’t believe in science or facts; they change the facts, outright lie, to justify their interpretation of the facts. They influence half of the American population with pure crap and their audience eats it up, because they have no analytical skills and they aren’t held accountable for their ignorance.
Dear Mr. Walters,
What you say about science deniers may be true in general but not necessarily true about folks who believe in a god, specifically. My caution is that there are many good people of faith who do not ascribe to delusional thinking or who have reconciled their beliefs with their knowledge. Casting judgements against all believers of God doesn’t make you any more rational or analytic than a person who goes around claiming all Mexicans are “bad hombres.”
James Preston Allen, Publisher