Expand city council election boundaries
Sequim is not immune to, nor isolated from, the effect of poor governance. Now is the time for the Sequim City Council to act to end ineffectual and outdated policies that do not reflect reality.
We are facing unprecedented challenges in our local community, as does the entire country. Sequim must recognize that it is highly dependent on the immediate surrounding areas and residents for its revenues as well as its sustainability.
Our City of Sequim should not be managed by a myopic and isolated council that supports policies that are not reflective of the needs of the greater community at large. Significant change can be realized by changing the eligibility requirement for Sequim City Council office.
The problem definition is not, “How do we find adequate and sufficient candidates?” for the city council. It is, rather, how can we change the rules so that new, progressive, younger and talented leadership can be induced to run and be elected.
A simple change, such as requiring elected officials to reside not within strict city limits, but within a few miles of the city center, would dramatically alter the availability of talented and willing people from which to choose the next council.
City geographical limits are highly restrictive and do not represent the greater area actually impacted by the city itself and upon which the City depends for its subsistence.
Tony Corrado
Sequim
No vote for ‘wannabe kings’
It is said that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has Trump autocratic aspirations, but DeSantis is much smarter than former president Donald Trump. With DeSantis signing Florida laws maligning nature’s created LBGTQ community, Disney’s World site of entertainment, arbitrarily banning various books from Florida schools and libraries, a six-week abortion ban and banning various black American histories in Florida public schools, much of it seems autocratic.
To me, these laws are signs from a state governor, who might run for the U.S. presidency, and if elected, might be inclined to attempt to make these strange autocratic Florida laws federal laws.
I cannot vote for “wannabe kings”! I believe voting for such people, if elected, is likely to cause the loss of all our civil rights and rule of law, even our constitution and our democracy.
My question is: Why would any American citizen vote for an aspiring dictator and risk losing their democratic liberties, rights and freedoms? In an autocracy, there are no Second Amendments for gun owners, no freedom of speech, no right to peacefully demonstrate, no right to a trial of your peers, and the list of suppression goes on.
Examples of such governments infest our planet. These situations explain why the USA is such a popular destination for immigrants. They are not a mystery!
Richard Hahn
Sequim
Consider the Code
Following World War II, the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal established The Nuremberg Code. Informed consent became the foremost ethical standard to protect autonomy over one’s body.
This code stresses necessity of possible pain, injury and risks versus benefits evaluation and patients’ “sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” The human brain doesn’t fully develop for 20-25 years, particularly for making decisions.
In his Supreme Court brief, Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, submitted the following transgender treatment research that indicates: puberty blockers interfere with bone and brain development; cross-sex hormone therapy increases cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular and thromboembolic events, osteoporosis and cancer risks; and, that long-term follow-up “sex reassigned individuals were 4.9 times more likely to attempt suicide and 19.1 percent times more likely to die by suicide” compared to the control group (supremecourt.gov).
McHugh states, after puberty, 85-95 percent of affected children accept their sex without invasive treatment risks. Twelve states have banned and 19 states are working towards prohibiting minors’ transgender-related procedures.
Washington’s laws facilitate distressed, adolescents’ decisions for mutilating surgeries without parental knowledge. They prohibit psychiatrists from treating youth seeking help with unwanted gender confusion, and recommend only “gender affirmation.” They assist concealment of children seeking transgender-related procedures from parents.
Can we rationally and ethically claim amputation of genitalia, breasts, etc., will improve long-term health of very vulnerable, troubled youth? How would the Nuremburg Tribunal judge those facilitating and performing minors’ irreversible breast and gentile mutilations?
Susan Shotthafer
Port Angeles
