Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Oakland needs, but
lacks, visionary leaders
Re: “Who is trying to fix Oakland’s problems?” (Page A6, Dec. 24).
Reader Ellen Rodin was not alone in wondering how Oakland’s government could be so dysfunctional. As she pointed out, Steven Falk’s excellent analysis answered how. Now, “why” becomes the problem.
Who would relinquish their own power? A redesigned city government would work but would require redistribution of control, and those in control are not exactly competing to ensure that they can depart first. Self-protection beats efficiency in Oakland government, detrimental to all city taxpayers. So if not fixed within city government, will change be imposed from without?
As a charter issue, change should be decided at the ballot box. Will Rep. Barbara Lee alter the city’s ability to function? Would this be a disastrous or great way to cap her outstanding career?
Repairing Oakland city government is essential; visionary leaders are notably absent.
R Cote
Castro Valley
Without proof of harm
feds panic over TikTok
On Dec. 27, the government’s Supreme Court brief revealed an unacceptable truth: The TikTok ban is built on speculation, not evidence. The government cites vague risks of data misuse and manipulation but provides no proof that TikTok has caused harm. This isn’t governance — it’s fear-driven censorship.
TikTok has tackled these concerns head-on with Project Texas, a $1.5 billion effort that secures U.S. user data on American soil, monitored by Oracle. These measures protect Americans’ data from foreign access, yet the government ignores this while turning a blind eye to abuses by U.S.-owned platforms like Facebook, Instagram and X. If data misuse is the issue, all platforms — not just TikTok — deserve scrutiny.
This ban is an assault on the freedoms of 170 million Americans. Citizens must demand accountability and demand Congress repeals this overreach. Liberty cannot survive when fear replaces evidence and fairness.
Matt Hall
Martinez
Making workers quit
is easier than layoffs
Re: “Five-day office return? Watch best workers quit” (Page A7, Dec. 27).
I think that Sarah Green Charmichael’s analysis of the effect of requiring U.S. government workers to return to work five days a week misses the bigger picture.
The loss of talent is not of interest to the people making the change. The one-in-four quote from Vivek Ramaswamy (“Ramaswamy told Tucker Carlson that the plan could get perhaps 1 in 4 federal workers to quit”) telegraphs the real motive.
People have wondered how the new president will be able to lay off thousands of workers who he would like to replace with people loyal to his party. People debate employment rules and consider court challenges.
The simplest way to lay off these people is to make them want to quit. You make them want to quit by changing something within your control, like how many days a week they must work in the office.
Chris Brown
Oakland
Auto industry is a study
in exploitation, greed
Re: “Automakers struggle in postpandemic market” (Page C7, Dec. 28).
When millions of people were forced to return to work and desperately needed to replace their cars, they were met with egregious markups at dealerships, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars.
Automakers and dealers took advantage of the working class, pocketing ill-gotten profits at the expense of hardworking Americans, who had to drive to work and could least afford it.
Historically, automakers have actively impeded the development of electric vehicles to protect their profits in lockstep with the oil industry. Automakers have offshored supply chains and inflated prices at every turn. The industry has become the embodiment of corporate greed. If this article is any indication, we can expect more narratives that pander to Wall Street, glorify bloated CEO compensation, and defend boardroom decisions that prioritize layoffs and temporary contract work over stable, full-time jobs. It is a decades-long cycle of exploitation and unchecked corporate greed.
Zarina Kiziloglu
Pleasanton
Carter, Biden exemplify
decency in service
President Joe Biden, in his statement on Sunday about the death of Jimmy Carter, talked about the former president’scourage and humility, and particularly his decency. A decent person is one who is respectful of others, a person who refrains from ugly talk about others’ character or looks. Biden is himself a decent man who, like Carter, understands how to conduct himself in a courteous manner befitting one serving as commander-in-chief and an important role model for all Americans.
Hearing his comments, my heart broke, realizing this may be the last time for a while that we hear the word “decent” used when discussing the occupant of the White House.
Teri Shikany
Danville