Principled athletes use their platform
Regarding “Disgraceful act” (Letters, Sept. 26): In this debate about athletes and the national anthem, the letter writer believes, like many, that professional athletes have no reason to complain because they are privileged to be making millions for simply playing with a ball.
No one voicing the author’s argument mentions that these individuals had to begin preparing for their career as young kids, often on inner city playgrounds or rural playfields, before we who became teachers, police officers, firefighters, neurosurgeons ... or members of the military had any idea of a life path. Unlike the president, who scorns them, many athletes rose from poverty and have had personal experiences with social injustice.
Most who take this long and arduous path never make it to the million-dollar paycheck. The athletic careers for those who do are a fraction of their lifetime. Most acknowledge their unique position by donating money and time to help the less fortunate. Professional athletes, including members of the author’s favorite team, who are now using their position to call attention to inequities in our American systems and policies are not a national disgrace but as principled as he considers himself and other military members to be.
Susan Berg, Lafayette
Focus on criminals
Regarding “California sanctuary law endangers lives” (Open Forum, Sept. 27): If U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confined itself to deporting dangerous criminals and allow law-abiding immigrants to continue to contribute to their communities, my guess is they would find the locals much more cooperative.
It is the heartbreaking stories of the deportations that fracture families, deprive communities of respected members and, incidentally, put in mortal danger those who through no fault of their own attract the attention of ICE that foster a public opinion that strongly supports the concept of sanctuary cities.
Dorothy Auerbach, San Francisco
Dodger-in-chief
Regarding “Disgraceful act” (Letters, Sept. 26): A question for the author who acknowledges the right to not stand for the national anthem and then calls the exercise of that right a “disgrace.”
What would you call the draft dodger-in-chief who, in his usual classy way, showed his respect for Vietnam veterans who served in his place by citing restraint to avoid sexually transmitted diseases as his sacrifice?
Frank Hochfeld, Albany
Kaepernick’s message
President Trump’s problem obviously is with Colin Kaepernick’s message, not with his method.
If Kaepernick had kneelt during the national anthem and then explained afterward that he did it to protest how unfairly the press had treated Trump, do you think Trump would have had even the slightest problem with it?
Bob Roden, Berkeley
Ways to interfere
Concerning “The Russians knew where to hide” ( John Diaz, Sept. 24): Even if the Federal Election Commission decides to regulate online political advertising by requiring donor disclosures, what’s to stop foreign or “altright” groups from buying social issue ads (on abortion, guns or LGBTQ rights) that don’t explicitly mention candidate names but are targeted to sway certain voters?
As for the AB249 Disclose Act in California, why is Assemblyman Kevin Mullin’s legislation requiring the disclosure only of donors of more than $50,000 for political advertising? Many political action committees can spend just below this arbitrary threshold to communicate their messages. It’s clear that the Russians, extremist groups and online trolls, skilled in the art of covert manipulation, will continue to find ways to interfere with our nation’s election process.
Julian Grant, Pacifica
Contemptible actions
Regarding Jeff Sessions’ and others’ attacks on political correctness: There is no difference between political correctness and courtesy. Of course, discourtesy is not a crime; it’s just mean and contemptible.
Jeffrey Ruda, San Francisco