Open impeachment proceedings now
As much as I respect (House) Speaker Pelosi, she’s wrong in her stance against opening an impeachment investigation on Trump. An investigation into his many, many wrongdoings will not hurt Democrats in 2020; it will shore up the public’s opinion of the harm he is doing to our country and provide vital information to oppose him. Trump’s actions must be made public so the public can decide for themselves their positions. I hope that my Rep. Jim Costa and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris recognize that and will take action.
The thing that will cause the most harm to any Democrat’s chances to win the White House is the “cannibalism” that occurs within the party during and after primary campaigning. Democrats need to campaign on who they are, what they’ve accomplished, and their platforms instead of attacking each other or their opponents. Run on platforms instead of slinging mud when it’s slung at them. There are too many important issues to address instead of wasting precious time responding to bullies.
Cynthia Miller, Fresno
Must do better for our children
The White House announced recently that it is planning to prevent the use of “worst case” emission scenarios in climate assessments. Further, it also plans to prevent the use of any analysis past the year 2040.
Unfortunately, the “worst case” emissions scenario that the White House refers to is better known as the “business as usual” scenario, the one that we are already on, so using that for planning is prudent, not alarmist. As time goes on, impacts will get worse, but are avoidable with short-term action, so working on scenarios only through 2040 (when my daughter will be in her 20s and likely trying to determine the course of her life) is intentionally ignoring the long-term effects of our actions.
The United States was once a great nation that looked to the future and planned for it. Under today’s politics, we have become a nation that sticks its head in the sand and damns our children to suffering. Climate change is a scientific matter, and has only become a partisan one because a few key individuals have chosen to make it so. We can, and have to, do better, for our children.
Matt Armstrong, Fresno
Heartbeat not enough of a sign
With the institution of the “heartbeat” rule is several Southern states (passed by predominantly male legislators,) the effect is to effectively ban all abortions at as little as six weeks of term. I have wondered why a detectable heartbeat is now considered to be the stage when a fetus becomes a “living thing.” My conclusion is that since the heartbeat is a simple thing to detect, and is one of the first externally detectable signs of development of a fetus, these lawmakers have latched onto the heartbeat as a means to further erode the constitutional protections given to women by the Supreme Court.
A six-week fetus with a detectable heartbeat is certainly not viable. Whether or not it is a “living thing” is debatable, but that answer does not lie in religious doctrine or in the laws of a particular state. That answer lies with the woman who is carrying the fetus. A fetus needs many more things to become viable: a functioning nervous system, digestive system, urinary system, a respiratory system ready to take a breath, and so on. No six-week fetus has any of those things. It is incapable of life until it develops to the point where it can live. If it is incapable of life on its own, is it a “living thing?” I say it is not.
Some fetuses do not normally develop one or more of these attributes; the mother’s body senses that, and the fetus is spontaneously aborted (i.e. a miscarriage). If the mother knows that a developing fetus will not have the environment for normal development after birth, due to financial or emotional factors, why shouldn’t the mother be able to choose to abort the fetus? After all, it is her choice.
George Burman, Fresno
Wishing for precious analog TV
I’ve read on the web that the general consensus of this new digital TV for antenna viewers in the rural areas is a bust. I’ve learned it lately too because I now only get about five or six channels in Tulare County, and the programs are the same ones day in and day out or repeats.
When I complained to the FCC that I wanted my old analog TV, they said the reason we only got a few channels was because we probably had a ham radio operator in the area and he or she was jamming our reception when he or she is on the air (which is most of the time).
By the way, I don’t watch that much TV, so cable is out of the question for the two to four hours I watch TV. To make a long story short, I feel America got “you know what” when it lost its analog TV. You can keep digital TV and this so called progress. Give me back my analog any day.
Reggie Cornejo, Porterville