Why we are dedicating this day to COVID
If you are reading this, you have by now noticed that the commentaries published throughout the Opinion section today are discussing the coronavirus pandemic. This editorial board believes it is important that all Californians and indeed all Americans and all people reflect on what happened over these last few years. As we did last year, we have chosen to use the anniversary of the stay-at-home order as the point at which to reflect.
Like all Americans, the members of our editorial board and the commentators in today's Opinion section have, and have had, differing and complicated views in relation to the pandemic.
This editorial board, guided by commitments to individual liberty, limited government and yes, going where the evidence takes us, offered numerous commentaries over the past three years attempting to make sense of the coronavirus pandemic.
From the earliest days of the pandemic, we questioned the wisdom of policing every little movement of people going outside.
We urged the devolving of decision-making to as local a level as possible. And we always criticized what we viewed as instances of government overreach, questionable spending and poor performance.
At the same time, we encouraged people to take personal responsibility, to protect themselves and those around them.
We applauded the private sector for swiftly moving toward telecommuting, and lauded the expansion of telehealth accessibility.
We urged Gov. Newsom to stand up to the foot-dragging teachers' unions and push for the reopening of schools. We encouraged vaccinations against the virus when they became available, viewing them as a convenient and overall safe and effective (if imperfect) tool for minimizing the harms of the virus.
And we have continued to support the availability of telehealth services and the loosening of licensing rules for health professionals to boost medical access.
We cannot ignore the reality that, for all the sacrifices made, about 100,000 Californians died as a direct consequence of the pandemic.
Nor can we ignore the widespread upheaval and distortions that the pandemic and the policy responses to it left in their wake. And we will continue to respond to them, praising the good, criticizing the bad.
That's why we have produced the section you are reading today.
You may agree with some, you may disagree with others. No member of our editorial board agrees with everything each other thinks. That's life. But we hope you find something to think about and take away from the commentaries you read in this section.
As always, you are invited to send us your feedback and insights. Please feel free to contact individual members of the editorial board. And we all encourage you to send in letters to the editor and reach the editorial board at opinion@scng. com.
Suppressing angry speech in America
I congratulate reporter Andre Mouchard for presenting the angry speech that has worked its way onto our campuses in “Angry speech at meetings filters down to students” (March 14). Mr. Mouchard suggests that this “angry talk” on campus is a threat to the fabric of learning on high school campuses and is something to keep in check. As a student I witnessed the same angry speech Mr. Mouchard describes among students. The divide was difficult, and one had to choose whether they wanted to fracture relationships and social acceptance. The main division was over the Vietnam War, but there were other issues that had never been broached: racism, pollution, grooming and dress standards, to name a few. That was back in the `60s, and I shudder to think where we would be as a society had this “angry speech” been suppressed.
— Gary Walsh, San Clemente
I see you got the White House memo on photos
Well, the newspaper obviously got the memo from the White House telling them to have at least four photos of President Biden in the paper. With all the problems facing us with inflation, loans, debts in the trillions, homelessness, just to name a few, I would think that our “leaders” would be working diligently on these situations and not worry about “feel good” pictures. Our hearts go out to those affected by the weather, the train derailments, and such, but our government needs to worry less about their numbers in the polls and get to work on long term solutions.
— Dulcie McCracken,
Long Beach
Union bashing
Last weekend's (March 12) editorials were particularly anti-union. Unions are forced by law to disclose all political spending over $5,000. The same isn't true of the business world. Usually, corporate spending in elections is at minimum 10 times more than unions' via dark money.
That always goes unreported. That does not address the insanely large amounts spent to kill efforts to organize. Why are you constantly opposed to workers struggling for their rights against immense, indeed quite often insurmountable, odds?
The bottom 60% of our workers have not seen a real raise since the 1970s, and inflation since then is destroying the middle class, which we need for a healthy democracy. Perhaps our democracy is currently unhealthy because of the lack of unions. That's not to mention politicians taking advantage of this to pit us against one another. That is another path to totalitarianism.
Reparations for Black Americans for slavery
Possibly from a guilty conscience, our Democratic politicians continue to push reparations for Black Americans. It's the question of who deserves reparations that needs to be reconsidered. I believe the money should go to descendants of the 300,000 Union soldiers who gave their lives so Black Americans could be free to make the most of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for good or not so good, just like the rest of us.
Monterey Park mass shooting and our society
Re “Biden consoles a shaken community” (March 15):
Guns are inanimate objects that are only deadly in the hands of one either killing something for sport or food or when a criminal is using it to kill or maim another human being.
The latter is against all laws and up until recent years was penalized by society with punitive action to decrease the hurt on society.
Lately, however, laws have been circumvented by leftist prosecutors that have caused an inevitable massive increase in violent crime and not helped society but instead given aid to criminals and psychopaths who want to harm others for their perversion or profit.
We don't need more gun laws. We need intelligent laws governing us all to make us safer from those that illegally get and use guns illegally. What Democrats want doesn't work and we proved that here decades ago with gun laws that were useless and dropped for lack of any substantial help to stop crime.