Letters: Party philosophy drives most voters, not partisanship

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Party philosophy drives voters, not partisanship

Re: “GOP, Dems should be opponents, not enemies” (Page A6, June 10).

Christopher Andrus considers both major political views before voting. For me, underlying party philosophy usually makes the decision.

Without stating names, one major political party tends to be charitable and responsible for many environmental and societal issues, such as climate change, healthcare and poverty. The other major party tends to view such matters as superfluous or societal freeloading. To be sure, mistakes are made on both sides, and some people harbor hybrid views. Also, there exist “super-progressives” and “super-conservatives,” which should be shunned on both sides.

However, one’s philosophy of life relates to the stance taken on important concerns, and thus to their party affiliation. For example, I have a relative who brags that he has never given a red cent to charity. He always votes for the party that tends to restrict funds for charitable concerns, such as the environment, healthcare and poverty. I vote the other way.

William Gilbert
Lafayette

World Cup is designed to fleece soccer’s fans

Re: “FIFA showing ugly side of beautiful game” (Page A1, June 9).

Dieter Kurtenbach hit the nail on the head with his Tuesday column.

My wife and kids were so excited when we learned the World Cup would return to the United States, to the Bay Area no less, after 32 years of waiting. In fact, I almost spilled my oatmeal when I jumped for joy. But when the prices and all the add-ons were announced, we collectively gagged on our oatmeal. Scam, digital mugging and extortion were accurate accusations, but overly gentle.

Now, we can afford it after a lifetime of work and frugal saving, but in protest, we will not be going. Thank you, Dieter, for saying so clearly what I believe we are all thinking.

Joel Olney
Livermore

Cancer drug gives patients true hope

Re: “New pill doubles survival time in brutal disease” (Page A6, June 4).

The article says the standing-ovation breakthrough that Daraxonrasib gives to pancreatic cancer patients is that they live on average 6.5 months longer. Six and a half months may not sound like much, but it is. Many people live only a few months after diagnosis. Each day becomes precious. Having 200 more is huge.

Also, there’s hope for living much longer than 6.5 extra months. The article says “on average,” but that’s not accurate. It’s 6.5 months median survival benefit. Average means some people lived a little longer. Median means half lived longer, no limit implied.

The standing ovation sets Daraxonrasib apart as a new therapy, but other breakthroughs are arriving frequently. Some people taking daraxonrasib now may live to see a true cure for pancreatic and other cancers, and that would be amazing.

Doug McKenzie
Berkeley

Overpopulation is world’s pressing concern

While we work toward stalemating Donald Trump, let’s focus on our other nightmare, overpopulation, our biggest problem by far.

The consumer-driven media avoids the subject, but we are held hostage by companies whose business models are so weak that they are dependent on ever more customers and cheap labor. We’re nudging 40 million people, over twice that of 1960. Drillers in the Central Valley are going 800, 1,000 feet where the water table was 180 to 200 feet.

The oceans, fount of all life, are dying. Light pollution is interrupting human circadian rhythms, contributing to breast cancer in women: micro and nanoplastics are everywhere, on average, a teaspoon in our brains. The New Yorker reported U.S. literacy peaking in 2012.

There are other ways to fund Social Security and Medicare than mindless breeding, such as tax breaks for those having “one or none,” and adopting.

Mike Scott
Walnut Creek

Column omits Becerra’s lifetime of public service

Re: “Here’s what’s underlying Becerra’s success” (Page A7, June 10).

What happened to the harder I work, the luckier I get?

I read with consternation the recent opinion piece by George Skelton of the L.A. Times regarding how Xavier Becerra is now the leading candidate for governor of California, due in large part to being lucky and in the right place at the right time. Becerra has devoted his life to public service at both the state and federal levels. Becerra outpolled all the other candidates running for governor. Was that just luck? I don’t think so.

Why is it that Hispanics don’t get credit for their hard work that made their accomplishments possible? It feels like we have to somehow apologize for our success because we really didn’t earn it. Well, no apology needed.

Gus Sanchez
Los Altos