Current Date

Subscribe / Renew

Donate

Claremont Courier - A Local Nonprofit Newsroom

Readers comments 10-15-21

A right to choose
Dear editor:
If the COVID-19 vaccines work, why are the vaccinated worried about the unvaccinated? If the Biden administration and/or the Newsome administration insist that everyone be vaccinated, why doesn’t Congress or the California legislature pass a law requiring that every citizen get vaccinated? Why is the government threatening huge fines to private sector employers of over 100 employees to require vaccinations in order to retain their jobs? Why are border patrol agents required to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but the illegal aliens which they are letting loose in our country are not required to be vaccinated?
I believe the answer to the above is because elected politicians are afraid of a backlash for re-election so they would rather have the private sector employers take the “hit” and the certain lawsuits that will follow. The same crowd that screams for a woman’s right to choose to terminate the life of the baby they’re carrying wants to mandate to others what they must do with their bodies.
Although I chose to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, I believe it must remain a personal choice for others. Now that the vaccine has been made available to all American citizens over 12 years old, I believe the wearing of masks should be at the option of the individual whether or not they have been vaccinated. If you’re afraid of getting Covid-19 even after being vaccinated and wearing an N95 mask; stay home, but don’t infringe on my rights or the rights of others to live, get sick, or even die from Covid-19. Although I choose not to wear a mask, it does not mean that I don’t care about others as yard signs around town may imply. It simply means that “I’m following the science.”
Kris M. Meyer
Claremont

Women’s rights and the men who obstruct
Dear editor:
I couldn’t agree more with Dan Kennon’s letter (Women’s Rights March, October 8 issue). Is it just me, or are the guys who try to butt into everything involving women’s rights (reproductive and otherwise) largely a bunch of white men, often older at that? How would these same men like it if powerful women in state houses across America decided to ban the sale of Viagra and force many of these same men to fly to Canada to get their pills? (Think of current Texas reproductive rights restrictions but in a comic turnabout.) Perhaps these right-wing ideologues have been inspired by Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” and long for the good old days when women walked a few steps behind their men and prepared three squares a day in a spotless 1950’s kitchen. And as I noted in a previous letter, for them government overreach is only a label attached to things they don’t like, whereas their draconian agenda is, well, not a problem, no matter how many restrictive laws they have to pass. As we slowly head into a more authoritarian, male-dominated, far-right world, with the deck being stacked toward permanent minority rule, I hope the well-educated and, especially, a majority of women (half the population, after all) get actively involved in order to help usher these types of men out of office!
Don Linde
La Verne

RE: Impact of our housing plan, Bob Gerecke, October 8 COURIER
Dear editor:
I agree, 100%. I have expressed similar sentiments and concerns in previous comments sent to the editor.
Jack Sultze
Claremont

Response to TCC vs. CST
Dear editor:
I read TCC vs. CST (COURIER, October 8) and previous related letters/articles with internecine sadness but also with incredulousness about their apparently poorly written real estate contract. I say “poorly” since it appears the contract has fuzzy and/or unmentioned key transactional details in addition to apparently not addressing future equity issues between the parties. As someone who negotiated hundreds of million dollar plus software deals, this TCC vs. CST story is word to the wise regarding large dollar contract terms and conditions: 1) Write your contract for rainy days (when the parties might be at odds) and sweat the details; and 2) ensure the contract meets the equity test where the parties will be treated fairly now and in the future. A detailed, durable contract is a thing of beauty.
David Ochroch
Claremont

 

Share This