Letters: Turning a blue wave into a blue ‘trickle’? In Republicans’ dreams

Blue ‘trickle’?

“Barack Obama is great for Republicans. And he may just block the ‘blue wave’” (sacbee.com, Sept. 13): Mr. Boychuk argues in his pro-Republican piece that President Obama’s entrance into the political fray is a boon to the Republican ticket. He failed to mention that Hillary won the popular vote. We haven’t yet seen the fallout from the trade wars that our bully, Mr. Trump, is forcing upon us. Hopefully, the economy won’t tank full-throttle again during the next Democratic presidency. Yes, the stock market has thrived while Trump has been in office thanks in part to a tax cut for the wealthy who don’t need it at the expense of the middle class and the poor. But turning the November election into a blue wave “trickle”? In his dreams.

Full of half-truths

Ben Boychuck’s article about Obama helping Republican turnout is full of half-truths, at best, when comparing the two Presidents. Trump has not "renegotiated NAFTA with Mexico.” He has an “agreement in principle” with an outgoing Mexican administration that cannot work. His tariffs have not “brought other trading partners in line.” We're on the verge of a full-scale trade war that will hurt the economy. The economy has not been growing at a “robust 4 percent.” The only quarter with that growth – last quarter – is not expected to be replicated and was surpassed in four separate quarters under Obama.

St. Hope’s success

“Sac High boss resigns, blasts St. Hope leaders for ‘history of neglect’” (sacbee.com, Sept. 12): My name is Mark Atilano and I am third year teaching assistant with St. Hope. I was fortunate enough to be hired at the elementary school. I found myself a new face on a team that had been through some changes. Since joining, I have seen our scholars exceed in the classroom and in their personal lives. The opportunity to work in a school such as PS7 elementary, to touch the lives of so many wonderful children and be part of such an amazing team is the reason that it was easy to walk away from real estate.

Christine Ford

“Feinstein was right to withhold Kavanaugh letter, accuser’s attorney says” (sacbee.com, Sept. 17): After the Democrats get through coaching Christine Blasley Ford for the next week, look to see her suddenly remember with great clarity who owned the house where the party was, how she got to the party and back, and how many joints she smoked. Perhaps she will also mention her resentment of Judge Kavanaugh’s mother who was briefly involved in a 1996 foreclosure action brought by a lender against Ford’s parents. She has evidently been waiting decades to take her revenge on him.

Corroboration?

Michael Gerson argues that the Senate will be charged with two questions: “Is it credible that the assault happened?” And, “is it part of a pattern of similar abuse?” Surely, this is absurd. If it is credible that the assault happened, then there should be no need for the second question. Gerson insists there must be corroboration of Ford’s testimony, either in the form of credible witnesses or similar accusations in unrelated cases. Let’s restate that: The unsupported testimony of a woman can never be deemed credible in a sexual assault case. California law has not required corroboration as a condition of prosecution in decades. Under Gerson’s rules, Kavanaugh could sit on the U.S. Supreme Court if he is found non-culpable due to a lack of corroboration. That is also absurd.

False allegations

If unprovable allegations of sexual misconduct over 30 years ago can override the overwhelming testimony of Kavanaugh's high moral character, what can happen to you or me? Are you willing to give up “innocent until proven guilty” for yourself? Sixty-five women who knew Kavanaugh in high school vouched for his character. Two women who had dated him in high school and college vouched for him. Sen. Dianne Feinstein had received the allegation in July. Why didn't Feinstein bring up this allegation during the hearings? Ford passed a lie detector test. However, memory is tricky and very often faulty, especially among those who are most convinced of their good memory.

Proposition 5

“Supporters say Proposition 5 would help California’s housing crisis. That’s a sham” (Editorials, Sept. 17): So The Bee’s editorial board doesn't think longtime homeowners 55 years and older should benefit from a property tax break if they “buy up” to another home? How shortsighted. Many people kept their modest “starter” homes and avoided pushing themselves to buy larger, more expensive places. As they consider retirement, they may have to spend more for a home that's senior-friendly in an area close to services. Many senior communities have monthly HOA fees. Even a slight increase in price could trigger a tripling of one's property taxes. Is that fair? Let's not neglect retirees and make them seriously consider pulling up stakes and moving outside of the state.

Logging vs. space

“More logging in California’s forests won’t prevent wildfires,” (sacbee.com, Sept. 14): I have been a wildland firefighter for two seasons now and I agree with everything in this article. An increase of logging isn’t going to significantly decrease the spread of wildfires. Fire can still travel on the ground; it does not need trees to spread. It is wrong that the Trump administration doesn’t even address the “defensible space” around homes. The clearing of 100 feet around a house can greatly increase the chance of a home being saved. The administration is focusing on the wrong solution and it needs to focus on real problems, not on increasing logging, which is clearly about money. We need to inform the public about “defensible space” regulations to decrease the chances of homes being burned.

Justice for youth

“Gov. Brown, if you don’t veto a bill to protect young killers, you create a legacy of pain” (Marcos Breton, Sept. 16): Breton is wrong in saying that SB 1391 is sweeping, broad, and overreaching. He is wrong in his analysis that district attorneys should keep their power to recommend whether a 14- or 15-year-old child should be tried as an adult. As a community organizer, I’ve sat with and supported families going through transfer hearings, and have watched the outcomes for victims and the community. These proceedings take months, sometimes years to complete – dragging families through the machinery of the courts. Meanwhile, the child receives little to no intervention. SB 1391 pivots the system to focus on determining what services a 14- or 15-year-old needs to rehabilitate, while holding the child accountable. It is the opposite of one-size-fits-all, as it will force us to look at that child and determine what we, as a village, need to do to ensure the crime never happens again.

Pain isn’t policy

A common question I’ve gotten in the last three decades of doing restorative justice work is: What if one day your child was murdered? Would you still advocate for sensible sentencing laws for children? Obviously, it is impossible for any of us to predict how we would react to such unimaginable pain. What I am certain of is that that day would be the worst day of my life. I would not want state laws created in reaction to the most horrible day of my life. I would want help to heal. I have accompanied children who have committed terribly inhumane acts, and we can always trace those violent acts to violence that they had suffered. By sentencing 14- and 15 year-old children to life in prison, we are consenting that some children will be born, live, and die without ever being given an opportunity to live a humane life.

 

Sign up

Get on The Take. Read the influential voices on California and national politics and issues. Sign up here.

This story was originally published September 21, 2018 at 3:14 AM.