Public doesn't support kill shelters

During my last visit to my hometown, I happened upon an article about a youth who had focused on the Atlantic County Humane Society for his Mitzvah project. He stated that he had chosen this animal shelter because of its no-kill status. The population of Atlantic County is 270,000. Their municipal shelter receives no federal funds, and relies on public donations. They implement a trap, neuter, return program and high-volume spay-and-neuter services to maintain their no-kill status.

Locally, Steve Wilkie expressed a similar sentiment by presenting Fort Pierce City commissioners with a generous $3,000 donation to be used for our highly successful new TNR city program. Notably, Wilkie decided to direct his contribution into a life-affirming program. His grossly enlarged check was brilliantly symbolic of the central importance of public perception.

Decidedly, the public does not support high-kill shelters.

The Humane Society's mission statement, "compassionate care and safe shelter to homeless animals,” and "open doors, open hearts" are hypocrisy to those who feel that this life-saving platform is not being upheld.

Both animals and taxpayers are owed certain rights. Denying these rights, while paying lip service to humanity, is not an effective means of garnering public support.

Susan Izes, Fort Pierce

Disney’s short film ‘Ferdinand’ is an allegory for our times

While vacationing in the Keys at an Old Florida hotel, our family watched Disney’s “Ferdinand the Bull.” Having only one channel can broaden your viewing horizons.

Briefly, Ferdinand is a gentle giant of a bull, happily grazing in a flower-dotted pasture in the Spanish countryside. After a misadventure with a bee, our hero lands in the arena facing the master matador, El Primo. In a climactic ending, Ferdinand humiliates El Primo, the crowd roars and Ferdinand returns to his floral hacienda.

Such is fantasy.

In the classic bullfight, the showy, pompous matador waves his cape. The bull, head high, charges blindly (bovines are terribly near sighted), missing the matador, but receiving a spear in the back. This happens over and over again. El Toro gets more exhausted with each charge. Near the end, he is staggering, soaked in blood, and is crested with a mane of spears.

Finally, with his head down in a stupor, he makes his final charge, receiving a sword in the spine. His swan song is to be dragged around the arena by burros to a cheering crowd.

In this I see an allegory of our times.

The world and much of America fill the stadium. Trump, the matador, waves his cape and the MAGA-headed herd rushes blindly towards it. Our country is hemorrhaging in debt. Its people are getting financially poorer and spiritually weaker, with each passing moment. Our future is increasingly bleak. The crowd is mesmerized by the spectacle but can do nothing to change the course of events.

The gate is open to a beautiful rosy future, but the bull is constantly being misdirected. Is the bull capable of understanding that he’s playing a game he cannot win? 

Ric Stange, Fort Pierce

Consider how citizens live in socialist countries 

Having served in or near socialist countries for 26 years while in the U.S. Army, I have witnessed firsthand the conditions under which their citizens live. Here are examples of what some of them must endure:

  • Earn high wages for the most menial of occupations, but also pay a 55 percent income tax.
  • Have free medical care, but wait long periods for attention and have no dental care.
  • Pay a tax on all radios, TVs, VCRs, DVDs, camcorders or any entertainment devices.
  • Watch only government-sponsored TV.
  • Have the post office control telephone service.
  • Pay between $5-$6 for a gallon of gas.
  • Report to the police any residential moves within two weeks or face arrest and fines.

For the above reasons, I would suggest that those who are advocating for social democracy in the United States take a second look at what their lives would be under these circumstances. Take a good look at Venezuela, Cuba, China and others before you vote for a candidate with these objectives on their agenda.

Jack Fargason, Palm City

The Electoral College vs. the popular vote

I would like to comment on the Feb. 6 letter from Frank DeGregory.

The election for the president of the United States is, to my knowledge, the only one that employs the Electoral College. The system consists of 52 small elections (one in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) rather than on a single large vote held across the nation.

For the most part, each of these is a “winner-take-all” contest.

Each of these is subject to different rules, different voting times (in terms of early voting or not), different methods of voting in terms of ballots, and differences in terms of absentee, military ballots and mailed ballots, and how these votes are handled and counted. These separate contests are more vulnerable to manipulation and hacking than one large contest would be.

Voting should be a popular vote total to determine the winner. Square mileage has no bearing on this decision. Land does not vote; people do.

The Electoral College has produced statistical anomalies in several of the last five presidential elections. Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the last five national contests, and have only two presidential terms to show for these results. These anomalies are inherent in this antiquated system.

Lastly, the concept of one vote for each voter to determine the outcome is subverted by the system itself. A Republican vote in a “blue” state should carry the same weight as a Democratic vote in a “red” state. This is not the case under the current system, which is more than 200 years old and should be changed.

Miles Deixler, Port St. Lucie

Read or Share this story: