Letters, Sept, 15, 2006

Send your letters to the editor to letters@atencionsanmiguel.org  Atención will not publish offensive or defamatory material.



Editor’s note:

Over the past two weeks much discussion has taken place about the article on Palestine published in the August 25 issue. I encourage readers to diversify the topics of interest for future discussion in this letters page.



Editor,

My wife and I arrived in San Miguel on Saturday, September 2, knowing little about your city except that it was a popular destination for erudite expats and that our artist friends have come to call it home. As a first act of orientation, I purchased the September 1 issue of Atención and found myself immediately swept up in the fallout from a controversial article that had apparently been published in the August 25 issue. Now, I can’t speak to the content as I did not read it. Nor can I comment on the appropriateness of its publication in Atención, since I know nothing of the paper’s history or purpose. What I can comment on is the impassioned response to a provocative piece that had me riveted from start to finish. Clearly, this was a community with blood coursing through its veins, a place where smart people took the issues of the world seriously and weren’t afraid to air their views. And let the chips fall where they may. In an age when the tyranny of the right and the tyranny of the left threaten to stif
le debate entirely, it was refreshing, even exhilarating, to see a community so willing to engage in honest, rational discussion. Debate is healthy, even vital, in a search for understanding, and surely any position worth holding is capable of enduring and surmounting its critics. After all, isn’t the cost of intellectual freedom the possibility of inflicting offense and the likelihood of being offended in return? To paraphrase French director Jean Luc Godard, the best criticism of a film is another film. That is exactly what I witnessed in the pages of Atención. For that alone the citizens of San Miguel are to be commended. For that alone I understand why this community not only exists but also flourishes.

Glenn Russow

Editor,

This letter is from a group of dog owners who make frequent use of the library.

We understand that recently there have been some cases where insufficiently trained dogs have misbehaved in the confines of the library.

Because we represent dog owners in this town who are highly responsible in training their pets properly, we request the library board to cooperate with us in arriving at a solution which would be satisfactory to all concerned and to refrain from imposing rules which would punish many for the unacceptable behaviour of a few. Specifically, we request the board to consider the solution presented at the August 31 meeting (i.e., to grant pass cards for well-behaved dogs to be presented at the door before entry and to be revoked for non-compliance with rules of behaviour to be determined by the board and posted at the entrance). A fee could be charged for these passes and a trial period imposed to determine feasibility.

We ask all dog owners who use the Biblioteca to ensure that they bring only well-trained, non-aggresive dogs on the premises, and that they be kept on leashes at all times.

We thank the board for their cooperation in this matter and trust that together we can arrive at a democratic solution.

Diane Danielson, Rosamond Campbell, Louise Levy, Maurice Levy, Charlotte Golden, Jim Ellsworth, Kathleen Ellsworth, Barbara Essick, Barbara O’Grady

Editor,

A couple of weeks ago I noticed that there is now a “no pets allowed” sign at the front of the library. This surprised me, not so much because of the decision in itself, but rather because no advance notice had been given to the members that the board of the library was intending to consider this change.

When a change of this nature is mooted—and it breaks with a tradition that to my knowledge has continued for the last twenty years at least—I do feel that where one has a democratically elected board it is incumbent upon that board to consult with its members first, giving the reasons why it intends to take the action recommended and allowing the members to discuss and vote on the matter.

Instead, we are presented with a “fait accompli” without any warning. I would like to state that as a member of this community, I am extremely appreciative of the hard work that the president and members of the board do, not only on the members’ behalf but also for the good of all. But in this case I feel obliged to remind them of their democratic duties as servants of the members. This I do reluctantly and I hope my representations will be taken in the good faith with which they are intended.

Let us now have a proper members’ meeting where both they and the board can reach a satisfactory solution to this problem for the good of all.

In the meantime and pending a proper decision, could we possibly have these “no pets allowed” signs taken down?

Tony Forster



Editor’s note: the Biblioteca Pública recently implemented a "No Dogs" policy in compliance with Ecology Department regulations and due to recurring incidents. The board is, however, reviewing that policy and will inform the public if any changes are approved.



THANK YOU

This issue of Atención was made possible by contributions from …

Christine Foster
Vicki Gundrum
Pat Hirschl
Nataraj Ishaya
Charles Miller
Gary Mitchell
Camie Sands

Editing & Proofreading
Darryl Clifford
Robert de Gast
José Luis Mendoza Aubert
Jack Najork
Gabriel Rubiera
Rhonda Vlasak

Photos
Carmen Riojas