Readers’ comments: September 13, 2024

Could La Puerta saga have ended differently?
Dear editor:
It’s regrettable that the former La Puerta site will not be more much needed parkland for the people of Claremont who are here now. Intimidation from Sacramento in my opinion has led to the zoning and probable permitting of houses to be built not appropriate to the site by a profit driven non-U.S. builder lacking interest in our city.
Is it possible that more resistance from local sources could have resulted in a different outcome? Where will we find land for future parks for Claremont and its people?
Ted Nall
Claremont

September is a good time to talk about suicide
Dear editor:
September is Suicide Awareness Month with this past Tuesday, September 10 being World Suicide Prevention Day.
Many of us in our community, including me, have deeply felt the impacts of suicide by a loved one. We’re left with the continuing questions that will never have answers, the day-to-day sense of loss that becomes part of the fabric of who we are, the feelings of guilt we know are irrational, but we just can’t shake, and the endless reminders of the senselessness of our loved one’s choice.
For nearly 20 years now, the United States has had a national suicide hotline that puts people in crisis with those who can help. In 2022, this became even simpler when the line transitioned from a standard 10 digit number to three digits, allowing people to reach help just by calling 988 from any touch tone phone. Help is available 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week.
I encourage everyone to take note of this number, have active discussions about its existence with those they love, and maybe help save more people from experiencing the devastating rippling effects of suicide.
Deborah Kekone
Claremont

Socialism, continued …
Dear editor:
In his September 6 letter [“Do Republicans really know what socialism is?”], Merrill Ring complains about Republicans’ “misuse of the word ‘socialism.’” He even laughably refers to Tim Walz’s claim that socialism is just “being neighborly.” Sorry Merrill, that is a very long way from the truth. What we have here is yet another case of assault and battery on the English language.
Socialism, Merrill, is dictatorial government control over the lives of its citizens. You know, like our own government colluding with big tech to stifle people’s free speech, or EV mandates, or gasoline vehicle bans, or any one of thousands of other dictatorial restrictions and mandates being pushed by Democrats. Put on all the lipstick you wish, but you’ll never dress up that pig known as socialism.
No Merrill, socialism (and communism) exist to empower an elitist ruling class, at the expense of the citizenry overall. Under socialism, the only ones who ever thrive are those in that elitist ruling class. Everyone else suffers, badly, as history has already proven, time and again.
For a nation and its people to thrive, we need free market capitalism, with all of those God-given natural rights documented so eloquently in our Constitution. And Democrats would be the first ones standing up for all of those natural rights if they truly wanted to be neighborly.
And as for communism? It’s even worse than socialism.
Douglas Lyon
Claremont

Socialism: it’s complicated
Dear editor:
While the letter published in the September 6 Courier [“Do Republicans really know what socialism is?”] makes a strong argument against the notion that Democratic candidates are socialists or communists, it’s important to recognize that political discourse often involves exaggeration and the use of loaded terms to influence public opinion. However, dismissing concerns about socialism as mere dishonesty or ignorance overlooks the complex realities of modern politics.
While it is true that traditional socialism and communism advocate for the nationalization of industries and the abolition of private property, these ideologies have evolved over time. In many Western democracies, including the United States, the term “socialism” is often used more loosely to describe policies that expand the role of government in the economy and in citizens’ lives. Programs like universal healthcare, free college tuition, and substantial tax increases on the wealthy are seen by some as steps toward a more socialized system, even if they don’t fully align with the textbook definitions of socialism or communism.
It’s also important to recognize that labeling such policies as “socialist” isn’t necessarily dishonest or ignorant. For many conservatives and libertarians, expanding government control over sectors like healthcare or energy is a significant ideological shift that moves closer to socialism. The fear is that such policies could lead to more government overreach, higher taxes, and less economic freedom — concerns that are valid in a democratic society that values debate and differing perspectives.
You also suggest that Trump’s use of the term “socialism” is an attack on being neighborly, Christian, or fair. However, one can be compassionate, caring, and supportive of community well-being without endorsing government intervention as the primary solution. Many conservatives believe that private charity, community involvement, and a free market economy can better address societal issues without the inefficiencies and potential pitfalls of expanded government control.
Aaron Peterson
Claremont