East Bay Times Letters to the Editor for July 5, 2024
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Individuals freely violate campus regulations because they are not held accountable. Violating campus regulations has often descended into violent intimidation, which is not legitimate protest.
John Adams believed morality and virtue were necessary for a free society, and that virtue was an inner commitment and voluntary outward obedience to principles of truth and moral law.
Violation of campus regulations is especially dangerous because it erodes, in the rising generation, a commitment to the rule of law.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Christ spoke of “the presence and persistence of expression that was reasonably perceived to be antisemitic” after Oct. 7. Who will teach the proposed antisemitism education classes? What will the curriculum include? A class dealing with an ugly problem is useful only if backed up by firm insistence on enforcement of campus regulations. People at UC Berkeley will watch what is done, and pay no attention to what is merely said.
Julia Lutch
Davis
Re: “Bay Area voters will have a say on big issue of affordable housing” (Page A1, June 27).
California housing bills and the East Bay Times’ article do not address a real problem. All the buildable land has been used up for market-rate housing. Developers claiming state housing rights have included only the minimum number of affordable housing units required by law.
The state passed many bills touted as promoting affordable housing. However, building lobbyists have made sure that market-rate housing is allowed as long as a few formally designated affordable housing units are included.
In the Bay Area, many market-rate, three-story townhouses sit empty due to rising construction costs. Potential buyers in even the highest tier of affordable housing cannot afford the well over a million dollars for the available units.
State housing bills do not produce affordable housing and should be modified to require units for each tier of affordable housing to receive the benefits.
Alice Cavette
Fremont
Re: “‘Mallard Fillmore’ doesn’t belong on comic page” (Page A6, June 27).
Another letter bemoans the non-PC humor of the brilliant “Mallard Fillmore” comic strip, which reduces issues of contemporary politics to a few, insightful sentences. It offers masterfully sardonic comments on current events and compares admirably with the brilliant political and social analyses of Will Rogers, Jr. and George Carlin — among America’s most beloved comedians.
Objections to “Mallard Fillmore” are indicative of a totalitarian society. Complainants cannot tolerate any comment not in lock-step with their political ideology. American ideals of free speech assure speech (ideas) with which “you” do not agree. Quashing such, as the letter-writer demands, is the position of fascism (on the right) and communism (on the left).
A society that cannot laugh at itself and its own foibles is repressed beyond belief.
Kudos to the editors for assuring free speech.
Fred Korr
Oakland
Re: “Biden, Trump launch into personal attacks” (Page A1, June 28).
I was initially appalled by those Joe Biden supporters who withdrew their support as a result of the debate. Although Biden’s forte has never been public speaking or entertainment, he stands among those hardest-working presidents who were most adept at wielding the tool of compromise to move forward without compromising the values upon which this country was founded.
I now agree with those who believe he should withdraw. Not because Biden’s not a good enough leader to be president, but because he’s too good of a person. His sense of decency, honesty and fair play only serve to fuel his opponent’s compulsion to lie, bully, cheat and do whatever else it takes to elevate his wants and needs ahead of anyone and everything else.
So, how does one beat a lying, cheating, yet entertaining, buffoon without being one? Perhaps only a world-class comedian devoted to the truth could pull it off.
Linda Thorlakson
Castro Valley
What are we showing our kids if we vote for Donald Trump?
Is it OK for us to rally behind a felon, a sexual abuser, and a man with no morals? In essence, we are saying that it is fine to vote for someone of this character. What message does that send? Our young people would think, “If our parents are supporting this behavior, it is really not that bad.”
Isn’t this the definition of a cult? Don’t drink the Kool-Aid. Beware.
Joe Hofman
San Ramon
