Letters: Steinem, Albright, oil trains, trade deal

Steinem, Albright don’t speak for me

Re “Steinem, Albright scold young women backing Sanders” (Insight, Feb. 8): Shame on these two women. They do not speak for me, and I am over 70! Women today make up their minds on whom to vote for based on qualifications, honesty, past records and, yes, even charisma.

This is not how real women, who are thinkers, decision-makers, engineers, mothers, doctors, housekeepers, act.

To the “young” women that Albright and Steinem addressed, I advise you not to take their advice but continue to be independent thinkers. Hell is big enough for all of us.

Steinem, Albright show blind sexism

Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright are wrong; rather than being “a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other” there is a special place for women whose sexism blinds them from making rational decisions.

Based on their beliefs, if the presidential choice was between Abraham Lincoln and Peggy Bundy, all women should choose Peg just because she’s female. That is the wrong criterion for selecting a leader. Hillary Clinton may eventually be nominated, but intelligent women should not be belittled for believing there could be somebody better.

Women should vote their beliefs

Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright suggest we should vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman.

Really? What about our beliefs? Female supporters, like male supporters, should vote for the candidate who stands for what they believe in, not their gender.

Gladiators play for big NFL contracts

Re “Football’s gladiators pay cost to amuse us” (Local, Marcos Breton, Feb. 7): We now know that repetitive head blows are not good for the brain. We knew this because we called ex-boxers punch drunk; it just took a smart doctor to connect it to football. Egos of the players are surely stroked by fans, but it’s the money that drives them.

The lure of that big-money contract and endorsements is what makes them blind to the physical ailments that they can expect in later life. Even if the pro athlete only makes a minimum contract, that amount is at the higher end of middle-class pay.

Stop Valero’s oil trains to Benicia

Re “Sacramento officials challenge Benicia oil train project” (Page 4A, Feb. 6): I urge the Benicia Planning Commission to deny Valero’s request to allow two 50-car oil trains a day, which would bring highly flammable trains cars across California.

The commission needs to answer these questions:

Would we want these trains running down the center of Benicia? If not, then we should not do this to Davis or Sacramento.

Would we want the redwood forests to be strip-mined? If not, then we should not contribute to the destruction of Alberta, Canada, which is being strip-mined for tar sands.

Would we want our water supply tainted by a spill from an oil train? If not, then we should not contribute to the environmental destruction in North Dakota, or the risk of water pollution in waterways that will be traversed by these trains.

Why is this trade deal different?

Re “Pacific trade pact means more jobs, higher wages for north state” (Viewpoints, Feb. 8): I challenge West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon to name one trade agreement that has not resulted in a net job loss for the U.S., or one where labor or environmental stipulations have actually been enforced in other countries.

There is no reason to believe this agreement is different and myriad reasons why Americans should not believe it. This deal is a corporate power grab that does not benefit most workers; it should be rejected.

This story was originally published February 8, 2016 at 4:00 PM with the headline "Letters: Steinem, Albright, oil trains, trade deal."