Margulies cartoon 9 2 19

Socialist or socialcrat

As a socialist, I’ve not cast a vote in favor of a Democratic candidate since 1984.

Nonetheless, those who choose to substitute an adjective for a noun by writing “Democrat” rather than “Democratic” reveal themselves to be both disrespectful and uneducated. It is akin to the ever-infantile “socialcrat,” which demonstrates one’s ignorance of the fact that liberalism and socialism are antithetical to one another. For liberalism is a pro-capitalist ideology.

The epithet “Democrat Party” ostensibly robs the Democratic Party of its association with desirable attributes, such as social and economic justice, but the root word remains unchanged. Consequently, while those who employ such a pejorative deem themselves shrewd, they aren’t.

These individuals come off sounding no less puerile, ill-mannered and desperate for a legitimate argument than did the tragic figure who popularized “Democrat Party” - Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy eventually came to be pilloried, and his present-day disciples should be, too.

When reading between the proverbial lines, designations such as “Democrat Party” and “socialcrat” speak volumes about those who use them.   

I haven’t any use for the Democratic Party, either. But denigration is not a substitute for a persuasive argument.

Guy Marsh


Clearing the air

The August 20, 2019 Antelope Valley Press article titled “City Renews Animal Care Pact” reported the City of Lancaster believes the Department of Animal Care and Control has double billed the city “based on animal housing vs field services.”

This statement is unclear because field services and animal housing are billed separately, as they are different functions with different costs. It is also unclear to what basis the city believes they are being double billed. The Department is unaware of any unresolved billing discrepancies for the city. We provide a list of addresses from which the animals originate, and when occasional errors are brought to our attention we credit the amount back to the city.

The city is correct in stating the Department’s costs have increased. An independent consultant reviewed the Department’s billing methodology and discovered that the County was heavily subsidizing contract city costs for animal care and control services. The increase, offered in a six year step up plan, was designed to right-size the billing.

Based on contract cities’ concerns about the increase, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors directed the CEO and Department to retain another consultant to review the Department’s costs and identify any efficiencies. That review is currently underway and the Department looks forward to its suggestions.

The City of Lancaster stated its concerns regarding the costs of housing cats. Implementing mandatory spaying/neutering and microchipping of cats would reduce the population of unwanted cats, allow us to identify ownership to return lost cats to their families, and improve the quality of residents’ and animals’ lives. Fewer unwanted cats will also result in lower impound and care costs for the city.

Marcia Mayeda


LA County Department of Animal Care and Control

A few final questions

Some random questions during our final days in the AV:

Will our crooked former mayor Jim Ledford ever face justice in court for the public funds he embezzled, or will he run out the clock?

Will Xavier Flores and his so-called nonprofit Pueblo y Salud continue to feast at the public trough even though the substance abuse problems he received millions of tax dollars to abate got much worse?

Will congresswoman Katie Hill be held accountable for the millions of tax dollars intended for the homeless that she squandered even while heading a so-called nonprofit and being paid a $170,000 salary?

Will the school board cabal continue to bully students and opponents and give themselves publicly funded goodies?

Will Californians ever wise up to the racket between Democrat politicians and their cohorts in the so-called nonprofit groups?

Will anyone ask, where did all the money go?  Whose bank accounts got fatter with your tax dollars?

Do voters think electing the same progressive idiots year after year made the once golden state better or worse?  

Bill Homan


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.