GOP’s skullduggery
It’s laughable that President Trump called for “bipartisanship” in his State of the Union address to Congress. This 45th commander in chief presides over a party that tried to undo the Affordable Care Act, passed tax cut legislation without any Democratic input and installed Neal Gorsuch on the Supreme Court after refusing to consider former President Barack Obama’s high-court selection for nearly one year. The modus operandi of this Republican Party is not bipartisanship; it is skullduggery. Julian Grant, Pacifica
Nixon parallels
Regarding “The enemies list” (Editorial, Jan. 31): By releasing a partisan memo that seeks to discredit the people and federal agencies investigating the 45th president, this administration is beginning to resemble one that existed under disgraced former President Richard Nixon.
If Special Counsel Robert Mueller charges the current president with obstruction of justice and the Democrats assume control of Congress after this year’s midterm elections, then expect President Trump (like Nixon) to be forever linked with one of these words: “impeachment” or “resignation.”
Terrence Williams, Berkeley
No more public shaming
Spare us the public shaming because London Breed didn’t win the vote to become interim mayor! Breed isn’t owed anything just because she’s African American and a woman. Nor is Jane Kim owed anything because she’s an Asian American woman or Mark Leno because he’s a gay man.
The Board of Supervisors did the right thing to give us a level playing field in the June election. It is Breed’s supporters who should be ashamed for cynically raising cries of racism and sexism where there is none.
Karl Jonas, San Francisco
Stiff sentences won’t help
Whatever the solutions (note plural) to car burglaries turn out to be, I doubt very much that stiffer jail sentences will be one of them. Unless, of course, we do something substantive to make those we put in jail employable. And take steps to ensure that a conviction for car burglary won’t render someone permanently unemployable.
Alas, it’s once again so much easier to fantasize that putting perpetrators out of sight in prisons will deliver a permanent quick fix to a complex problem. Riley VanDyke, San Francisco
Climate change evidence
Regarding “Chances rising for a too-dry winter” (Jan. 30): This article is another in the ever-mounting pile of evidence that climate change is very real and is having a direct impact on ecosystems and the humans who rely on them for survival. It can no longer be treated as some distant, hypothetical issue that can be solved later down the line.
We must take immediate action to curb our carbon pollution as a society, but we must do so without disrupting society. One way to accomplish this is by a carbon fee and dividend, which puts a price on carbon upstream and sends a signal to consumers and markets that we can no longer emit dangerous greenhouse gases for free.
While this administration openly denies and even mocks climate change, there is bipartisan support in Congress for a climate solutions bill. Let’s take action before it is too late. Jatin Khanna, San Francisco
Prohibit clear-cutting
Californians are well-advised to continue water conservation at home. But far above urban faucets, protection of intact watersheds is vital. That means stopping the inexcusable practice called clear-cutting, used by private logging companies to start their tree farms. Complete removal of mature trees means loss of two important buffers against climate change: the abilities of forests to store water and to sequester tons of carbon dioxide.
Ask Gov. Jerry Brown, legislators and California Board of Forestry and Fire to permanently prohibit timber harvest by clear-cutting. Industrial logging companies might help by resuming sustainable, selective harvests without decimating our iconic forests. Bob Moncrieff, Monte Sereno
Addressing homelessness
Regarding “Shocked by the misery on San Francisco’s streets” (Jan. 30): Jon Handlery, in his reply to a commenter, stated that our city has failed to address the (homeless) issue. To my knowledge, it has been addressed over and over again since I returned to the Bay Area in 1986. My new co-worker at that time was up in arms because the city just announced the poor will no longer be required to have an address to receive a welfare check.
She saw it as the beginning of a truly bad ending. Was she right? Let’s go back in our time machine to 1985 and theoretically change the decision. On paper, would it play out any worse? One thing is for certain: The homeless do not migrate to California for the weather alone. What incentive do we give the homeless to spend limited money on housing instead of drugs? Noreen Franklin, Castro Valley
Question Musk’s judgment
No one can question the creative genius of Elon Musk. However, marketing a flamethrower does call his judgment into question. Does he really understand the destructive power of the weapon, or how it was used in combat? My grandfather fought on Okinawa and did unspeakable, sickening things with his weapon. He really had no choice given the nature of the combat, but I am certain he would shudder at the thought of such a horrid device being sold to the general public. Have we really reached a point in our culture where making a quick buck supersedes all ethical and moral consideration? Mark Allendorf, San Mateo
Flamethrowers folly
Concerning “He’s on fire” (Daily Briefing, Business, Jan. 31): Tesla founder and entrepreneur Elon Musk tweeted that buying one of his Boring Co. flamethrowers is “a super terrible idea. Definitely don’t buy one. Unless you like fun.” Given our state’s recent devastating wildfires and current dry vegetation, I’d say that only the first part of his statement is correct. Karl Gustafson, Half Moon Bay