Seriously, Senator?
Re “The GOP’s new nominee rule,” editorial, Oct. 19
My first reaction to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stating he would try to block any U.S. Supreme Court nominee put forth by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was shock and horror.
Is he saying only Republicans get to nominate Supreme Court judges? Is he trying to rewrite the Constitution and destroy the integrity of the court? Is he trying to get Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump elected?
Then the penny dropped. Why would McCain, who clearly hates Trump, be working to elect him? No, this is a subtle pro-Clinton move on his part. He’s reassuring the Republican base that it can elect Clinton and still preserve the Supreme Court for a future Republican president.
So (wink, wink) thank you, Sen. McCain, for joining us to elect Clinton. It’s the responsible thing to do.
Jeanne Nelson
Laguna Niguel
As a lifelong Republican, I am trying to hit the right keyboard keys while controlling my laughter over McCain saying the GOP will block any Clinton nominee.
McCain is running in Arizona for reelection to the U.S. Senate. After he made his statement, he surely looked over his shoulder, smiled and winked at Clinton.
The Republicans today play fight and roll over. I’ve seen it a hundred times. Worry not, nearly all of Clinton’s nominees will be approved, but we have to suffer through a little theater before approval.
Carl McHenry
Yucaipa
#NeverTrump, #NeverClinton Re “The conservative case for Clinton,” Opinion, Oct. 17
James Kirchick’s opening statement, “That Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Donald Trump should be evident to any mammal,” is the very type of condescending remark that has driven so many into the Trump camp. It’s the liberal notion that the unwashed multitude isn’t intelligent enough make a rational decision on its own.
Trump is a less than ideal candidate, and just about any mammal outside the political establishment would be just as appealing. And that is the point being missed by these so-called experts.
The average citizen is so sick of the elitist, abovethe-law, self-serving insiders running this country that a blowhard like Trump can win. It’s not Trump the person that is appealing; it’s the concept that the status quo must change. As Trump would say, what do we have to lose?
P.G. Harvey
Mission Viejo
The #NeverTrump movement is totally bankrupt unless its adherents vote for Clinton.
With only two serious candidates, the math is clear: If you don’t vote for Trump and do vote for Clinton, your choice can make an impact. If you withhold your vote from Trump but give it to a third-party candidate, you have only half as much impact.
Kirchick also makes the point that political opinion writers have a responsibility to inform voters as to which candidate is better. OK, but how? I doubt that anyone who doesn’t understand the necessity of voting for Clinton to defeat Trump will ever read a thoughtful op-ed article in a quality liberal-leaning newspaper.
Reading this article made me nod and smile, but I doubt it will have Kirchick’s intended effect.
Peter Vincent
Los Angeles
As one of the millions of Americans who cannot justify a vote for either Trump or Clinton, I found Kirchick’s piece misguided and a little insulting. That Clinton is arguably more “presidential” than Trump is not nearly enough to justify his lecture on why #NeverTrumpers should support her.
A candidate needs to deserve the votes he or she gets. While Trump is most of the negative labels that have been attached to him, Clinton is proven to be dishonest and in serious lack of sound judgment on several occasions.
If I choose to withhold my vote from both candidates, as a registered Republican I’ve essentially cast half a vote for her by default. But my choice not to give her the same level of support I would normally give to the Republican nominee has every bit as much legitimacy as those who opt to hold their nose and choose one of the two.
Bob Cunningham
Riverside
As President Obama once said, “The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms nor the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals.”
By any measure, Trump does not have the insight or the dignity to embrace such a thought. #NeverTrumpers do indeed need to vote for Clinton or explain to their children and grandchildren just why they did not.
Marcia Herman
Los Angeles
Chicken is no better than beef Re “Suffering by the numbers,” Opinion, Oct. 16
Peter Singer and Karen Dawn suggest that chicken production may be less environmentally degrading than beef, but this claim is disputable. A study possibly behind this assertion, by the National Academy of Sciences published in 2014, focused only on the environmental impact of feeding these animals.
The chicken industry in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States mirrors the poultry industry’s baleful effect on the environment. More than 5,000 chicken houses hold a half a billion birds at any given time on a tiny strip of land. The 750,000 tons of waste produced annually by these captive birds has made the poultry industry the primary polluter of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia.
Comparing the production of chickens and cows environmentally is like comparing rotten apples and oranges: Neither is “better.”
Karen Davis
Machipongo, Va. The writer is president of United Poultry Concerns.
As I read this piece, the words of theologian Albert Schweitzer came to mind: “Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.”
Thanks to activists shining the light on the extreme cruelties of animal agriculture, more and more people are changing their diets. Clearly, an educated consumer is the meat, dairy and egg industries’ worst nightmare.
As plant-based eating moves from the margins to the mainstream, it has never been easier to make the transition. Most favorite dishes are now available in versions without animal products. Vegan diets are humane, more healthful and environmentally friendly. What are you waiting for?
Stewart David
Venice, Fla.
How not to get shot: Obey cops Re “‘Might’ have a gun? Don’t shoot,” letters, Oct. 19
A letter writer asked what he was missing in this continuing controversy about police officers shooting suspects when no gun is seen. What he is missing is the reality of reaction time.
It is well known by police that a suspect can present a gun and get off a shot before the officer can see a gun, perceive the threat and fire his weapon. Many critics of police shootings don’t seem to realize that — and what they demand of police will certainly result in an officer being shot before he can react to the presence of a gun.
The solution is really simple: When an officer issues a command, comply with it. David H. Dolson
Valencia The writer is a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain.
Don’t skip that mammogram Re “More complex view of breast cancer,” Oct. 13
The data used by the study authors to show that breast cancer incidence is not increasing were a short, exceptionally flat area of the curve and not representative of the trend when the data are viewed over a longer period. The true picture of breast cancer incidence is based on four decades of data from a national database.
The authors instead “cherry-picked” a few years of the flattened part of the breast cancer incidence curve from the mid-1970s to make their calculations. When the correct breast cancer incidence is used, the paper actually confirms the benefits of mammography screening.
Annual screening mammography beginning at age 40 has been proved to decrease the chances of suffering and dying from breast cancer. The only ones to benefit from this misleading data manipulation are insurers and health systems, not the individuals they serve.
Rebecca Zuurbier, MD
Lebanon, N.H. The writer is director of breast imaging at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center.