Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Re: “Families, advocates react to Biden’s commutations” (Page A4, Dec. 24).
President Biden recently commuted 37 federal death penalty cases to life in prison. This action received mixed reactions from the public. I support the president’s action for these three reasons:
First, because execution is final and mistakes by witnesses, police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and jurors cannot be corrected. In such a case the death penalty is just as wrong as the crime that was charged.
Second, it is just as immoral for society to kill a person as for an individual to do so. We cannot claim to be a Christian or even a moral nation and still kill people. However, incarceration to protect society is justified.
Third, death penalty trials, appeals and special jail arrangements cost too much money. Our taxes are better invested in education, drug diversion and rehabilitation of those who someday will be returning to society.
Ed Green
Oakland
Re: “Official says repair of obliterated wharf will likely be long process” (Page A1, Dec. 25).
The Santa Cruz Wharf, a century-old symbol of coastal charm, faces an undeniable reality: Mother Nature will determine its fate. The recent partial collapse during a storm highlights its vulnerability to rising seas and intensifying weather. Yet, we continue pouring millions into temporary fixes, resisting the inevitability of nature’s forces. This knee-jerk preservation reflects a deeper unwillingness to confront the supremacy of the ocean, which reclaims what is not built to endure.
Propping up the wharf diverts resources from pressing community needs like affordable housing, mental health services and climate resilience. While the wharf’s legacy is important, clinging to it in its current form is unsustainable. Instead, we should honor its history through memorials and plan for a future aligned with nature’s power.
Mother Nature will have the final say. Acting proactively is our chance to create a sustainable Santa Cruz that works with, not against, the ocean.
Chris Tasik
Walnut Creek
Re: “Knee-jerk Trump hatred should stop now” (Page A6, Dec. 17).
The headline on the Dec. 17 Letter to the Editor distorts the actual sense of the letter, which simply calls for Donald Trump’s opponents “to tone down the rhetoric and the hatred” of Trump. Knee-jerk or not, however, reasons for continuing opposition to Trump deserve consideration and should not be brushed aside.
Of several reasons for anti-Trumpism, a key element of the Trump strategy of particular concern is his constant lying. Imagine Trump as the driver of a vehicle. To ensure public safety, the law requires drivers to be capable of seeing, interpreting, acknowledging and acting according to reality. Trump’s lies recorded in print and digital media predict that America is in for a wildly dangerous ride starting Jan. 20, when he takes the wheel.
Americans are unwise to “pray for Trump’s success” given the flagrant dishonesty continually guiding his actions.
Ruby MacDonald
El Cerrito
Re: “Baristas at more than 300 Starbucks stores walk out, union says” (Page C7, Dec. 25).
Starbucks workers going on a strike asking for more wages might be dooming themselves.
Coffee is overpriced as it is. Ultimately, if they get a raise, it’s the customers who will pay for it. On top of that, coffee shop workers expect a tip.
I stopped going to Starbucks and any other shop long ago for overpriced coffees. Instead I fix a cup every morning from my home.
Juan Lores
Richmond
Re: “It’s time to talk about America’s alcoholism” (Page A9, Dec. 22).
I want to thank Jane Hillstrom for this article.
I have one correction. Alcoholic parents do not love alcohol more than they love their children. They have a disease doctors have described as a mental obsession and a physical craving. They do not choose to have this disease any more than one would choose to have cancer or heart disease.
DiAnn Hillerman
Oakland
Re: “Proponents must read entire 2nd Amendment” (Page A6, Dec. 12).
At first glance, the Second Amendment to the Constitution might appear to say that guns are only necessary for the purpose of having “a well-regulated militia,” but it’s demonstrably false to conclude that this was the only reason “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Guns were an essential part of life (for hunting and personal or family defense) for most of our history, so the right of private citizens to own them was considered sacrosanct. (Limiting the type or quantity of firearms are different issues.) The real reason for the militia citation is because the defense of the nation against enemies, foreign or domestic, was a principal concern of the federal government. And, even then, one of the first things tyrants did was to disarm the people.
Christopher Andrus
Dublin
