RIP U.S, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California
Sen. Dianne Feinstein did so much for California in her long, admirable political career. But the Inland Empire owes her a special debt of gratitude. Without her, I don't believe Ontario International Airport would be under local control today. It was Feinstein who quietly, behind the scenes, got Los Angeles and Ontario officials to negotiate the airport's transfer back to local governance. It was painful in recent months to hear Democrats pressuring her to step down. I'm glad she got to leave on her own terms. RIP, DiFi.
The death penalty
Re “Death penalty and death of a deputy” (Sept. 28):
For as long as I've been aware of the issue (the death penalty as a “deterrent”), I've always felt that the reasons for it were misleading. It takes so long between crime and punishment, and is so rarely imposed, that its effectiveness is all but negligible. And no, it won't bring the victim back to life! We all know that. The purpose of the death penalty is to prevent a murderer from ever murdering again. To be sure, life without parole is a horrific penalty. However, given the new breed of DAs, and other soft-on-crime politicians now in office, it's getting ever more possible for people who murder others to get away with it. The death penalty assures that this can't happen ... ever.
LAUSD proposal on having charter schools share space on several district campuses
Re “Board advances limits on charters” (Sept. 27):
Jackie Goldberg and Rocio Rivas should be ashamed, suggesting the district's most vulnerable students need protection from charter schools sharing space on campuses. The truth is that the charters are currently the best option for many of those most vulnerable students.
The Goldberg/Rivas proposal is condemning those students to be forced to stay in underperforming schools and graduate without the skills necessary to be competitive in a rapidly evolving environment. We all need to remind the LAUSD board that the children of our district are not theirs to keep captive in poor schools. The district is charged with providing them a good education. If the parents think the local charter is a better choice, that choice should be available. The students, the family, the community would all benefit.
— Mike Hurley,
Porter Ranch
Newsom vetoes three bills, but don't be fooled
Re “The governor shows flash of moderation” (Sept. 26):
We shouldn't be fooled by Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent veto of three bills submitted by the California Legislature. Using his pen on three specific bills is a good way of showing the rest of America that he isn't as progressive as he's been made to appear. His aspirations to run for president remain intact. AB 316 and AB 1306 are both soft bills that don't blatantly affect California citizens, although 1306 does address illegal immigration status of criminal migrants, a hot topic for some voters. As for AB 957 — clearly a left-leaning piece of proposed legislation that is backed by the LGBTQ community — it serves as the true sacrificial lamb for Newsom. How ironic, considering that the good governor appears to be dressing himself in sheep's clothing in his quest to get into the White House.
— Dain Gingerelli,
Temecula
Gun taxes and carry bans are not 2nd Amendment
Re “Newsom OKs tax, rules on firearms”:
Democrats are fond of saying they are “saving our democracy,” however, the facts contradict that assessment. First they insist on undermining the 2nd Amendment at every turn, passing laws that punish the law-abiding who are prudent, sane, moral owners of legal firearms.
They rarely mention most of our country's gun violence occurs in Democratic cities that have strict gun laws. Secondly, they intentionally undermine the Supreme Court. After signing the new gun (probably unconstitutional) laws, Newsom said, “I'm not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.” Pretty sure Newsom is the ideologue in this debate.