Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Anti-vaxxers traumatize
others when they fall ill
Those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine are verifying my long-held conclusion: humans are suicidal, homicidal or both. Of course, those who are medically (not religiously) excused, experience breakthrough infection or are too young get a pass — they already have enough going on, and best wishes to them.
Because I’m not running for office, I get to say what’s on my mind. I have had enough of the deniers and vaccine-refusers. The sick and dying are being cared for by exhausted and traumatized medical personnel. What gives the refusers the right to expect heroics from these nurses and doctors? They complain that they’re being insulted by being told what to do. Poor babies. No time? Fear of needles? How about fear of gasping for each breath until the horrible end?
Anti-vaxxers: The gene pool marches on with or without you and the friends and family members you are killing.
Josefa Sharona
Concord
E-prescription law
will drive doctors away
A new law for physicians, AB 2789, goes into effect on Jan. 1. Prescriptions can no longer be written on paper, but must be transmitted to the patient’s pharmacy electronically by a software program.
For solo practitioners, this will be an added cost and a learning curve to deal with. I predict negative unintended consequences including older doctors, like myself, retiring from active practice. Have you tried changing primary physicians lately?
John Knowles
Walnut Creek
Letter focuses on only
half of 2nd Amendment
Re. “Bearing arms is key part of amendment,” Letters to the Editor, Page A6, Dec. 22:
The problem with the Second Amendment is not the second half (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) but with the first half (“A well-regulated Militia being necessary …”), which gives the justification for the second half, and implies service in a militia of some type.
Just because we all can understand the second half does not mean we can ignore the first half (the rationale). We can’t pick and choose which words we like in an amendment.
Robert Zanker
Concord
Expanding court would
expand partisanship
Re. “Idea of expanding the Supreme Court beginning to gain traction,” Page A7, Dec. 21:
Democrats who would like to expand the U.S. Supreme Court show that it is they who want a politicized court. Conservative justices are the ones who don’t see the court as political. Rather, they see it as the guardian of the Constitution interpreted strictly as written (not “flexibly” or creatively interpreted in order to suit political or social aims) as the standard of all law-making and practice. This means that they sometimes rule in ways that will frustrate conservatives as well as progressives.
This is why it’s no mere coincidence that all of the swing votes on the Court since the 1960s have been GOP appointees (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Day-O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy and, now, Roberts). Three (Blackmun, Stevens and Souter) even became part of the liberal block. Democrat-appointed justices, on the other hand, prove to be reliable supporters of progressive causes. But the SCOTUS isn’t supposed to be partisan.
Christopher Andrus
Dublin
2nd Amendment doesn’t
assert individual right
Mike Goldstein cherry-picked his quote of the Second Amendment (“Bearing arms is key part of amendment,” Page A6, Dec. 22), as do many Republicans, while disagreeing with Bruce Joffe on the topic of gun control (“Newsom should cast a wide anti-gun net,” Page A6, Dec. 18).
Apparently, he thinks every individual has the right to carry arms wherever they like. The Second Amendment fully states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
One wonders how Mr. Goldstein, or any rational person, thinks this applies to individuals of no such association.
Don Morgan
Concord
Hanson columns
serve as a bad example
I have to agree with all the letters regarding the importance of conservative opinion columns in this newspaper. Without them, where would English teachers find such splendid examples of bad writing?
Victor Davis Hanson is an especially egregious offender, seemingly content to construct his columns by throwing together a series of only tangentially related statements with little to no original analysis and who seems to think that mocking the term “woke” in every other sentence is an adequate substitute for an actual thesis.
The lack of coherent argument in his columns is sincerely impressive and highlights the importance of keeping these perspectives in print: It delivers some much-needed comedic relief.
Tess Arrighi
Livermore
Source: www.mercurynews.com