What the ‘e’ in email stands for
Re “Clinton must steer clear of foundation” (Editorials, Aug. 23): A good friend of mine, who happens to be an attorney, once asked me if I knew what the “e” in the word email stood for. I responded, of course I know. The “e” stands for “electronic,” as in electronic mail. He laughed out loud, then became dead serious and answered, the “e” in email stands for only one thing ... and that is evidence!
His advice was do not use email. Especially do not use email if you are a politician, businessman or lawyer. In a controversy, emails will only hurt you. Hillary Clinton could have used this advice years ago. His advice on communicating with others: a face-to-face meeting, or use the telephone.
Clinton has only herself to blame for the mess she is in. A lesson for her is “you reap what you sow.”
Richard K. Thompson, Roseville
Why Judicial Watch and not the media?
Why did Judicial Watch have to go alone to request the thousands of emails associated with this mess? Where was and is the media? Shame on you. The great journalists from the past are spinning in their graves.
Russ Brown, Carmichael
Effective school accountability
Re “Single score is a misleading way to judge California’s schools” (Viewpoints, Aug. 22): The position of children’s advocates, including Children Now, is being mischaracterized. We are not calling for a single number to determine school quality, but that the state create an accountability system that clearly articulates how the multiple measures mentioned in the article will be combined and used to track student progress, gauge school effectiveness and identify which schools need support – and possibly intervention – should poor student outcomes persist.
Multiple measures, a policy priority we have led for years, are a good way to assess the overall success of a school. But without some synthesis of that multitude of data, it is unclear how the 17 measures being considered will be used to make decisions. The state must develop a system that communicates meaningful, clear information to the public and that ensures struggling schools are identified for support.
Can the little guy win one?
Re “Tokyo Fro’s sues University Village landlord” (Page 2A, Aug. 23): Cathie Anderson’s column about the development of University Village at Howe and Fair Oaks strikes me as one of the sadder recent examples of small business struggling against developer interests.
The ugly methods the big guys (Merlone Geier Partners) can use to oust the little guy (Tokyo Fro’s) seem to be mostly legal, and all lousy. I wonder how much bad karma University Village and its developers are storing with their mean and bullying approach to updating. I hope quite a lot.
California needs to train a militia
Re “Regulated militias are a state’s right” (Letters, Aug. 22): Letter writer Dale Heckman might do well to read the entire Second Amendment as well as the California Military and Veterans Code. The Second Amendment does indeed address individual gun rights where it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
The California establishment of a militia, organized and unorganized, is spelled out in the California Military and Veterans Code, Section 120. Section 121 defines the unorganized militia to consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia, excluding members already serving. Section 122 goes on to include all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45, and others.
The Supreme Court does not need to revisit its 2008 decision, the state of California needs to educate and train its militia in California on citizens’ responsibilities under the California Military and Veterans Code.
Don Strauch, Folsom
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.