Send your letter to the editor using this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Vaccines traumatize others when they get sick
Those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine verify my long-held conclusion: humans are suicidal, homicidal, or both. Of course, those who are medically (not religiously) excused, who have a breakthrough infection, or who are too young get a pass – they already have enough going on and our best wishes to them.
Because I am not running for office, I can speak my mind. I’ve had enough of the deniers and refusals of vaccines. The sick and dying are cared for by exhausted and traumatized medical staff. What gives deniers the right to expect from the heroism of these nurses and doctors? They complain about being insulted by being told what to do. Poor babies. No time? Afraid of needles? What about the fear of gasping with every breath until the horrible ending?
Anti-Vaccines: The gene pool continues with or without you and the friends and family you kill.
E-prescribing law will scare doctors away
A new law for doctors, AB 2789, comes into force on January 1. Prescriptions can no longer be written on paper, but must be transmitted electronically to the patient’s pharmacy through software.
For solo practitioners, this will be an additional cost and a learning curve to manage. I predict unintended negative consequences, including the withdrawal of older physicians, like myself, from active practice. Have you tried changing your family doctor lately?
John knowlesWalnut Creek
The letter focuses on only half of the 2nd Amendment
D. “Bearing arms is a key part of the amendment,” Letters to the Editor, page A6, December 22:
The problem with the Second Amendment is not the second half (“the right of the people to own and bear arms”) but with the first half (“A well-regulated militia being necessary …”), which justifies the second. . half, and involves service in a militia of some type.
Just because we can all understand the second half does not mean we can ignore the first half (the rationale). We cannot choose the words we like in an amendment.
Enlargement of the court would increase partisanship
D. “The Idea of Expanding the Supreme Court Begins to Gain”, page A7, December 21:
Democrats who want to expand the US Supreme Court show that they are the ones who want a politicized court. Conservative judges are those who do not see the court as political. Rather, they see it as the guardian of the Constitution interpreted strictly as written (not “flexibly” or creatively interpreted to meet political or social goals) as the standard of all law and practice. This means that they sometimes govern in a way that will frustrate conservatives and progressives alike.
This is why it is no mere coincidence that all of the decisive votes in court since the 1960s have been nominated by the GOP (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Day-O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy and, now, Roberts). Three (Blackmun, Stevens and Souter) are even part of the liberal bloc. Democrat-appointed judges, on the other hand, prove to be reliable supporters of progressive causes. But SCOTUS is not supposed to be partisan.
The 2nd amendment does not assert the individual right
Mike Goldstein picked his Second Amendment quote (“Bearing arms is a key part of the Amendment,” page A6, December 22), as many Republicans do, while disagreeing with Bruce Joffe on the subject of gun control (“Newsom Should Cast Wide Anti-Gun Net”, page A6, December 18).
Apparently, he believes that everyone has the right to carry arms wherever they see fit. The Second Amendment fully states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and bear arms must not be infringed. “
One wonders how Mr. Goldstein, or any rational person, thinks this applies to individuals without such an association.
Hanson columns set a bad example
I agree with all the letters about the importance of conservative opinion columns in this newspaper. Without them, where would English teachers find such fine examples of bad writing?
Victor Davis Hanson is a particularly blatant offender, apparently content to build his columns by putting together a series of uniquely tangentially related statements with little to no original analysis and who seem to think that they make fun of the term “awakening” in all the others. sentences is a substitute for an actual thesis.
The lack of consistent arguments in his columns is genuinely impressive, and underscores the importance of keeping these perspectives in print: it brings much-needed comedic relief.