How to elect the correct candidate
Cop’s compassion
Regarding “A moderator’s burden: keeping the facts straight” (Insight, Sept. 25): John Diaz correctly surmises that part of a good journalist’s job, especially as a debate moderator, is to point out falsehoods, challenge contradictory statements and ask tough follow-up questions. Presidential debate viewers ought to be regarded as intelligent adults who base their decision making on facts and policy proposals, not lies and name calling. And on election day, Americans ought to ask: Which candidate has the best grasp of issues and temperament to serve as our next commander-in-chief ? Remember, we are electing a leader, not a reality TV show host.
Luisa Westbrook, San Francisco
Preventive measures
Regarding “AltSchool enters next phase, tries to expand” (Sept. 25): For Synapse School, $165,000 is a hefty bite. Why is it we can’t afford to adequately fund student education? The simple answer is that students don’t vote. But what about the costs at the other end for poorly educated youths, school-to-prison concerns, costs for prisons, not enough funds for rehabilitation in prison and job training when released and on and on and on? These questions and concerns have been with us for way too long. We must wake up and realize spending for AltSchool, other effective programs plus mental and physical health programs for every child in the U.S. could and would solve many, many problems we continue to suffer through daily. Let’s try a massive preventive maintenance program. As it is now, think of the brainpower and creativity lost for each generation. Political will and deep public and private pockets are required now.
Henry Hopkins, Richmond
Buy back housing
Regarding “Sinking tower’s developer built strictly to code” (Sept. 25): The Millennium Tower may be built to code, but if the developers knew the building was sinking at a time when they were selling units, they had a duty to make that known to potential buyers in the disclosures. Failure to do so should be sufficient reason to force them to buy the units back.
Gary Hill, Oakland
Scale up success
Regarding “State’s climate fight showing progress” (Sept. 25): California has indeed made dramatic strides in reducing its carbon footprint, but nationwide, emissions are still rising. Let’s address the concerns of local manufacturers with an effective national policy that has bipartisan support: carbon fee and dividend. This revenue-neutral approach collects a fee on carbon and then distributes it equally to every American household. With the passage of AJR43, California legislators have endorsed this national plan — let’s make sure that Washington, D.C., gets the message so we can scale up California’s success.
Ben Keller, Oakland
Regarding “Standoff with suicidal man at Civic Center ends in arrest” (Sept. 25): Reading about a six-hour standoff with an armed man who threatened police officers and himself, I am grateful for the heroic efforts of law enforcement, who kept our city safe and spared this man’s life. I am also struck by the sharp contrast between this story and those of other recent police encounters with armed civilians. As we closely examine the use of deadly force by police officers, what was it about this man that led to negotiations instead of bullets? The police spokesman reports that he was “in crisis,” and despondent over “personal family problems.” Are not most armed assailants in crisis? While each situation is unique, I don’t know that this man would have survived, were he not white. Would the police have reported so kindly on his personal crisis? This man deserves every bit of compassion and support he received. I would like to see all citizens receiving this level of compassion and empathy from law enforcement.
Erika Kimball, San Francisco
Disingenuous tax
I don’t support the soda tax. Not because it’s a tax, although I generally oppose new taxes, but because of the disingenuous nature of the proposal. Proponents say that the purpose of this tax is to reduce soda consumption by kids to protect their health. Hogwash. I’ve lived in San Francisco for 35 years and I have never seen any public service ads or billboards advising against soda consumption until the idea for this tax came along.
This is just a tax with the proceeds going into the general fund. If you think my view is somehow outside the norm, then why is it that not one of the billionaires in the Bay Area is openly supporting this dishonest money hunt? The only person putting money behind this tax is Michael Bloomberg, a Wall Street denizen and former mayor of New York City, which rejected his soda tax. Proponents could only find support from a carpetbagging Republican in a city without a single elected Republican. What does this tell you?
Bill Lofton, San Francisco