Need for drowning memorial
Re “River memorial could save lives” (Forum, July 26): I was very touched by the article by Laura-Lynne Powell. My husband drowned in the American River on Aug. 24, 2011, salmon fishing by himself. He was not drinking and he was not swimming. He was an experienced fisherman.
Since that time, I have struggled to understand the countless, senseless drownings in our area. I found no groups I could identify with to share my grief. I searched for meaning and made it a point to attend DART (Drowning Accident Rescue Team) meetings and thank the volunteers for their commitment to finding victims in the water.
I yearn to see a memorial that overlooks our river with glass that sparkles in the setting sun and names in tile that pay homage to the loss of these souls. Years and years of senseless suffering and we need to call out their names and remember.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Legal pot would be detrimental
Re “Newsom takes high road on marijuana” (Forum, Dan Morain, July 26): What real value does legalizing marijuana for recreational use have? A euphemism for marijuana is dope. Its sole purpose is to get someone high. Isn’t it enough that smoking cigarettes has been proven to be hazardous to our well-being?
Instead of moving forward to a better future for our children and society, our lieutenant governor has nothing better to do than to promote this legislation legalizing a drug that will detrimentally alter not only your lungs, but every organ in your body. And, with this product, you can bake as well as smoke it. Yippee.
Why are we even giving it our time of day? Plain and simple, Big Money is sponsoring this and they plan to get richer. They will tell you the taxes will benefit us. There is no benefit. And, don’t tell me to get used to it.
Regina Viani, Sacramento
Piling on Reagan unwarranted
Re “Bury the statue of Ronald Reagan” and “The truth about Reagan legacy” (Letters, July 26): It’s easy to take pot shots at former presidents as readers Don Knutson and Nancy Luque did in support of Cruz Reynoso’s tirade against Ronald Reagan. Other than supporting Reynoso’s earlier hit piece on Reagan, neither reader adds anything of substance.
Reynoso, a longtime left-wing activist, was a state Supreme Court justice with close ties to Chief Justice Rose Bird. Both were voted off the court in 1986 for their liberal judicial activism. Reagan wasn’t involved, but other Republicans were. Maybe that still stings.
Better alternative to nuke deal?
Re “Nuclear deal with Iran leaves vulnerable, insecure feeling” (Viewpoints, July 26): Yes, the Iran deal is not perfect. But this is not July or August of 1945, when we could dictate unconditional surrender. Today, the only possible deal was a compromise. That means we don’t get everything we want, and the Iranians don’t get everything they want. Compromises always disappoint.
We live in a dangerous world. Rabbi Reuven Taff’s grandchildren and mine will continue to live in a dangerous world for decades – and future generations probably for centuries.
Is Taff’s very best “solution” no deal, at all? What, then, if Iran proceeds to develop nuclear weapons? No one has offered a plausible alternative.
The only alternative I can imagine those opposed to the deal favoring – among any that might actually change Iran’s course – is war. Is war the unspoken preference? We have seen the unintended consequences of a misguided war by choice in Iraq. Do we really want to throw another Molotov cocktail into the volatile Middle East?
Paul D. Jordan, Volcano
Arguments lack substance
The statements made by the foes of the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran lack substance. These individuals criticize without offering counterproposals; their complaints are dominated by suspicion of the unknown. These naysayers also do not provide any realistic way to improve the proposal. Shouting “no deal is better than a bad deal” is a baseless tactic raising fear while offering no solution.
What people fail to accept is that a country can always acquire a nuclear weapon. If you do not accept an agreement with a country to constrain its perceived pursuit for such a weapon, what action can achieve the desired result? Rejecting the current proposal does nothing to lessen the outcome and leaves Iran with ample means to produce a future weapon.
Nuclear agreement is a good deal
No deal is worse than this deal. Even with the stringent trade restrictions, Iran was on track to obtain enough fissionable material for a nuclear bomb in two months, according to Iranwatch.
With this treaty, the Iranian nuclear program is slowed, which provides more time to negotiate with Iran. Hopefully, during this period, it may be possible to reach accords with the Iranian government that produces further changes in its nuclear and foreign policies.
John Stephens, Fair Oaks