Change format for academic debates
Regarding “UC Center to put focus on free speech” (Bay Area, Oct. 27): I concur with embattled UC President Janet Napolitano that “Our nation needs an outlet to grapple with the questions of free speech on college campuses.”
And I have a suggestion. Instead of the raucous and oft-times violent confrontations triggered by openly partisan provocations (the most recent being a ludicrous Free Speech Week limited to a lineup of “alt-right” icons), I propose a different format — return to the robust forum of the academic debate. Rather than UC playing host to a series of selfpromoting ideological lightning rods, let’s illuminate the public podium with a rambunctious exchange of contesting views. A few initial suggestions: Milo Yiannopoulos versus Russell Brand; Ann Coulter versus Rachel Maddow; Steve Bannon versus Stephen Colbert. Let the debates begin.
Gar Smith, Berkeley
Korean perspective
I would like to read more information about how South Koreans feel about the threat of North Korea. As I was watching the recent Ken Burns series on Vietnam, I was struck by the parallels between the Korean debacle and how we bungled the Vietnam conflict. As the great Dana Carvey once said, the only thing we learned about Vietnam was, “Stay out of Vietnam.”
Robert Lefkowitz, Danville
A cowardly act
I was gratified to hear New York’s mayor characterize the terrorist attack there as “cowardly.” Terrorists attack those who can’t fight back; even one who chooses suicide is dodging the chance that someone might shoot back and mess up his/her “hero” or “martyr” scenario. At least in English, neither term applies to someone killing the innocent and weak. I urge the media to adapt instead a transliteration of the Arabic term now usually translated as “martyr” — blowing yourself up with innocent bystanders does not fit the conventional English definition of that traditionally honorable word.
The Islamic State urged individual terrorist attacks abroad when the Caliphate started to suffer setbacks — statements made it clear that once air attacks hurt the Islamic State, they would prefer to retaliate on those who couldn’t fight back. It’s much harder to be proud of killing when your victims are weak and uninvolved; you have to use verbal subterfuges to disguise, to oneself and the world, your failure of courage to meet an equal adversary. The words you use affect how you regard the actions — at the very least, we need to remember that terrorism is, by our definition, a coward’s act.
Miriam Mueller, San Francisco
Tired of driving
Regarding “Not practical” (Letters, Nov. 2): The letter writer stated “You cannot provide your readers with one human being alive who is hoping for the opportunity to be a passenger in a driverless vehicle.” Well, here’s one, and I have many friends who feel the same. I agree it would be safer if all cars were driverless, but, living in Los Altos and watching senior drivers back up until they hear glass, or young drivers crash through the book drop at the library because, of course, they thought they were on the brake, is frightening.
And I’m just plain tired of driving. Who wants to do nothing but sit and watch the red light waiting for it to turn? Let the car figure it out. If the letter writer wants a list of people ready for these cars, please tell him to contact me, because I’ve quite a number of volunteers.
Diane Brauch, Los Altos Hills
Lack of courage
Regarding “GOP’s silence” (Letters, Oct. 30): I’m with the letter writer. We see courage demonstrated in many professions, most recently among firefighters. There are examples on the political front: Although some think their profession demands their silence, 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts felt the responsibility to speak out in the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”
But how is it that among Republican congressmen, only those who are retiring have the courage to warn the nation about the dangers of this president?
Solace Wales, Kentfield
Set example for others
Regarding “U.S. denounces ‘outlaw’ actions of Pyongyang” (Main News, Oct. 29): We in the U.S. — and especially in the government — are forgetting that to prevent a war with North Korea and to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons in the rest of the world, our own good behavior is also needed as much as that of every other nation.
It is futile to hope and demand that North Korea will tone down its belligerent talking and weapons testing unless we are also willing to contribute to the peace process by improving our own words and actions.
Rama Kumar, Fairfax