Readers’ Comments: October 10, 2025

Readers’ Comments: October 10, 2025

A fact is a fact

Dear editor:

A fact is and ought to be a fact. No alternative fact.

Opanyi Nasiali

Claremont

Trump’s rhetoric helps drive right wing terror attacks

Dear editor:

Christian nationalists are giddy with exploiting their perfect martyr Charlie Kirk. Unfortunately, anyone outside their cult bubble of hate knows the truth about what Kirk stood for, and no one else is buying it.

I will echo what every decent human being should agree on: no matter how vile Kirk’s hate speech was, he had the right to say it without out being assassinated. Kirk was the poster child for all racists, misogynists, antisemites, anti-Muslims and every other radical white grievance group under the sun. Unable to go toe to toe in a real debate with educated historians, Kirk with no more than a high school education turned his attention to college campuses, attempting to fuel any dormant toxic masculinity of aggrieved white young men. In Kirk’s own words he stated, “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” This has to be the height of irony that his own cavalier words would eventually turn on him.

Here’s the inconvenient truth, confirmed by a simple Google search on terrorist attacks:

A 2020 study by the bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization the Center of Strategic and International Center titled, “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States,” analyzed the sources of terror attacks. It found of 893 attacks and plots in the United States between 1994 and 2020, right-wing terrorists were responsible for the majority — 57% — compared to 25% committed by left-wing terrorists.

So, if conservatives are looking to assign blame for the increase in violence, they can look directly to Trump’s violent rhetoric over the last 10 years and his cult.

Perhaps, we can start with January 6th!

Sydney Pollack

Claremont

CPD: step up e-bike rules enforcement

Dear editor:

I write to request Claremont Police Department spend more time patrolling the Village and citing the people on e-bikes, motorized scooters, and motorized skateboards who engage in extremely dangerous riding, particularly in the evenings and on the weekends.

Recently my sister was downtown on an evening and was practically overrun by a young person riding an e-bike doing a wheelie on the sidewalk. I was with friends a couple of months ago on a Friday evening when a young man wearing headphones, riding a motorized skateboard, danced on it while blowing through the stop sign at the intersection of Yale and Bonita. Previous to that, one Saturday afternoon two young men on motorized bikes passed me on the right at the corner of Yale and First Street, then flew north on Yale, completely ignoring the stop signs all the way to Bonita. When I honked at them, they yelled at me and flipped me the bird.

Undoubtedly, we aren’t the only people who have experienced this kind of behavior. These e-vehicle riders are an e-menace, as the Washington Post charged October 2. Please, Claremont PD, do something to rein in these outlaws before someone gets seriously injured. And while you’re at it, please also cite the people who back into parking spaces in the Village. They are on the wrong side of the street backing in and pulling out. Very annoying!

Denise Spooner

Claremont

Trump: malignant narcissism on steroids

Dear editor:

I grew up in Eagle Rock. That included periodic visits to our relatives to see their vacation pictures, shown with a slide projector. My Dad, no mincer of words, would say something like, “Why the hell do we have to go see their (bleep) pictures?!” And were he alive in this age of Facebook, Instagram, X, Truth Social, Tik Tok, etc., his head would explode. If a few boring slides bothered him, imagine his reaction to people constantly posting selfies, sharing what they eat, where they go, whatever thoughts pop into their head.

I believe technology has fueled a pandemic of narcissism now, coming at us from all directions. Our president has been arguably dubbed a “malignant narcissist” and when you combine that with obsessions of wealth and power you have a potentially dangerous cocktail.

In a March 12, 2019, posting in Psychology Today, a 1964 book by Erich Fromm was mentioned: “The Heart of Man: It’s Genius for Good and Evil.” I was intrigued enough to buy a copy of this short book. I couldn’t put it down.

Fromm writes that “the narcissistic person … reacts with intense anger when he is criticized. He tends to feel that the criticism is a hostile attack, since by the very nature of his narcissism he cannot imagine that it is justified” and “If political actions are based on narcissistic self-glorifications, the lack of objectivity often leads to disastrous consequences.” The president’s endless barrage of “tweeted” insults toward anyone who disagrees with him or his policies is evidence of what Fromm was writing about. I also believe that the more narcissistic one is the less sense of humor, kindness and perspective one has. Fromm’s book helps explain so many things about current conditions in Washington.

Don Linde

La Verne

Cost of new police facility is excessive

Dear editor:

In Claremont we’re very supportive of equal rights, whether it’s in our world famous schools or in our workplaces. Nobody would argue the benefits of having a separate women’s locker room within our police building.

However, to us and many of the readers, the $3 million proposed cost [“City Council: new facility in works for female police personnel,” September 12] of the 1,248 square-foot locker room addition seems excessive, raising many eyebrows and many more questions than eyebrows.

A contractor we know said a very modern state of the art 1,248 square foot locker room could be completed with a budget under $1 million.

There should be transparency about the bidding process for such large projects. Taxpayers and City money should not be a credit card with no spending limits or accountability.

It’s very concerning.

James W.
Claremont

Government: stay out of our libraries

Dear editor:

Why do Republicans want to remove our right to read certain books? Is their judgement fair? What happened to our freedom of choice? It’s an extreme action for a political party to choose which reading material we choose. What happened to parental control? The choice to allow which books our children read should be a personal one, certainly not a governmental decision!

Pamela McDonald

Riverside

Democrats are already gerrymandering

Dear editor:

I just received my Proposition 50 ballot in the mail. The first thing I noticed was the very distorted title that California’s highly partisan Democrat secretary of state applied to the proposition, namely: “Authorizes Temporary Changes to Congressional District Maps in Response to Texas’ Partisan Redistricting.”

First, if approved by deceived voters, any and all changes would be permanent, not temporary. Sacramento’s highly partisan Democrats would see to that, one way or another.

Second, in response to Texas’ partisan redistricting? Now that’s a hoot! But it is par for the course for Gavin Newsom who either misrepresents every issue, or outright lies about it.

Truth is, Democrats in a multitude of states have for years already been gerrymandering their Congressional districts. Whereas Republican-led states generally have not. So Texas now is merely proposing to do what so many Democrat-controlled states have already done.

But let’s look at a couple of examples of what Democrats have actually already done.

Democrat-controlled Massachusetts, for example, has nine Congressional districts. All of them are represented by Democrats. Yet over one third of Massachusetts voters vote Republican. Which means, with un-gerrymandered districts, Massachusetts should have 3 Republican House members. But they don’t. They have zero.

Or how about Democrat-controlled Illinois? That state has 17 Congressional districts, and only three of them are represented by Republicans. That’s roughly 18% of the state’s districts. Yet 40% to 45% of the state’s voters vote Republican. Which means, with fair, un-gerrymandered districts Republicans should represent roughly seven districts, instead of only three, demonstrating yet again what Democrat gerrymandering has already done!

And those are just two of many Democrat-controlled states, but please, feel free to do your own research, and also … Vote no on 50.

Douglas Lyon

Claremont