Letters: There's a way around Great Highway closure traffic jam
Regarding 'Has the Great Highway closure led to a traffic nightmare? This is the most complete data yet' (Projects, SFChronicle.com, June 16): I lived on 40th Avenue in San Francisco's Outer Richmond for over 20 years before relocating last year. I always found complaints about traffic on Chain of Lakes Drive in Golden Gate Park to be overblown.
Many drivers seem to have forgotten or never experienced the same congestion during periodic Great Highway closures (usually for sand) before the COVID pandemic.
When I saw cars backed up to Lincoln or Fulton on Chain of Lakes, I had a simple solution: go around the west side of the park on the Great Highway — the portion that remains open after the recent closure.
At the height of rush hour, this detour never took me more than about five minutes.
John Cumming, West Sacramento
Stop gestapo tactics
Regarding 'Deport the worst' (Letters to the Editor, June 15): I suspect most people would not argue much with letter writer Peter Behr's call to deport criminals.
The problem with President Donald Trump's policies, encouraged by adviser Stephen Miller, is that to meet their high deportation goals, they are taking law-abiding immigrants and, in some cases, citizens, and putting them into their dragnet.
People are showing up for immigration court hearings like they are supposed to do, and being detained and deported. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are going into farms, restaurants and other workplaces and just taking people away, especially in Democratic cities and states.
There's no legal process. ICE seems to be turning into the gestapo — fear and intimidation. What is next?
Notice how Trump sent in the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, and Homeland Security Secretary Noem saying that they are there to 'liberate California'?
Please wake up, Mr. Behr. Republicans, especially those in Congress, need to take steps to control Trump before it is too late.
Mike Elgie, San Rafael
Tariffs are taxes
President Donald Trump says that consumers don't pay tariffs; foreigners do. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I should know — I just paid it.
I recently ordered a piece of equipment used in an obscure martial art from Japan. It's a craft item that will never be made in the United States. The cost was $525, but on delivery, UPS required an additional $180. When I asked what it was for, the answer was tariffs on steel and aluminum.
That $180 paid to the federal government won't contribute to the creation of any jobs in the U.S. It won't make us richer or more competitive. It did take money out of my pocket and out of the real economy that could have been spent in our community.
Make no mistake, tariffs are a tax, pure and simple. They are a tax on all of us.
Support new teachers
Regarding 'Legislature rejects 'draconian' cuts to UC and CSU, keeps TK-12 funding intact' (California, SFChronicle.com, June 12): I applaud the California Legislature's work balancing the budget; however, one area needs more attention and fiscal support: paying a stipend for aspiring teachers.
Many teachers spend hundreds of hours learning in classrooms, with no salary but high debt. This barrier is one of the leading causes of a declining teacher workforce, particularly in California.
In Dublin, where I live, advanced and honors classes suffer from ill-trained substitute teachers, while there are hardly any new teachers on campus. This worsens education and hurts student outcomes.
With one of the largest educational budgets across the nation, California can lead by example: In this next budget cycle, by creating this new program — with the proposed $600 million price tag — it can start incentivizing aspiring teachers to enter the workforce.
Aayush Gandhi, Dublin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Weak,' ‘whiny' and ‘invisible': Critics of DNC Chair Ken Martin savage his tenure
Four-and-a-half months after the Democratic National Committee chair pledged to focus on fighting Donald Trump, Ken Martin's short tenure leading the organization has been engulfed by bitter infighting. Even longtime party insiders are getting impatient. Interviews with a dozen DNC members revealed deep frustration with Martin and concern about his ability to unify and lead a party trying to recover from massive electoral losses in 2024. One DNC member — who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly — described him as looking 'weak and whiny,' and another said he has been 'invisible' and his 'early tenure has been disappointing.' Rahm Emanuel, former President Barack Obama's first White House chief of staff, said the committee is floundering. 'We're in the most serious existential crisis with Donald Trump both at home and abroad — and with the biggest political opportunity in a decade,' Emanuel said. 'And the DNC has spent six months on a firing squad in the circle, and can't even fire a shot out. And Trump's world is a target-rich environment.' Many DNC members and outside Democrats, including Martin's supporters, said they wished the party would just move on from recent internal turmoil and focus instead on mounting an effective fight against Trump. Two influential labor union heads quit their posts at the DNC after disagreements over the party's direction. Gun control activist David Hogg was ousted from the DNC's vice chairman position after he pledged to fund primary challenges against "ineffective" has infuriated some Democrats by purging a number of party officials from a powerful panel that has enormous sway over the presidential nominating contest. And Martincomplained in a private meeting that intraparty warfare had 'destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to.' Martin and his supporters argue he's focused on the things that matter and will ultimately win elections. They said he has traveled to dozens of states and boosted funding to state parties at the same time that Democrats have overperformed in special elections this year. They maintain the overwhelming majority of DNC members are solidly behind Martin, and that his detractors are a vocal minority. 'I ran and won the race for DNC chair to get the DNC out of DC — because too many people in DC want to point fingers, and play the blame game,' said Martin in a statement to POLITICO. 'They want to win irrelevant arguments, with no strategy involved, but the one strategic thing that makes us relevant is winning elections. I was elected chair to help our party win again, and we are.' But some Democrats worry the DNC is struggling to hold its own coalition together, let alone expand its appeal. They expressed frustration over the DNC's break-up with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and AFSCME President Lee Saunders — who between them represent millions of members — as the latest sign of a widening gap between party leadership and the labor movement, a once-core part of the Democratic coalition. 'The DNC is weaker than I have ever seen it. … They have shown zero ability to chart a post-24 vision for Democrats,' said a Democratic strategist with close ties to labor unions, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. The longtime leaders of the teachers and state and local employee unions couldn't 'in good faith continue to rubber-stamp what was going on with the DNC,' the strategist said. Both Weingarten and Saunders expressed concern about Democrats not enlarging their tent in their respective letter and statement about their departures. Weingarten told POLITICO, 'I have said my piece. I want the Democratic Party to work for working families. That's what FDR did, that's what Joe Biden did, and that's what we should expect from the party.' Some Democratic lawmakers have gone public with their complaints that the DNC's infighting has distracted from the party's larger goals. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) grumbled on the social media platform X that he would "love to have a day go by" without the DNC doing 'something embarrassing & off message.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X he wanted 'a party with a big tent and inclusion, not subtraction and pushing people out.' Other Democrats cited what they described as Martin's ham-handed approach to the DNC's influential rules and bylaws committee, which is charged with setting the 2028 presidential primary calendar. Martin purged members of the panel, including Weingarten and Saunders, who had supported Martin's top opponent in the February election for DNC chair. Of the 15 Democrats he took off the panel, 13 of them hadn't voted for Martin, according to an internal record obtained by POLITICO. Martin only reappointed four individuals for the panel who didn't back him in the chair election, according to the documents. Martin's supporters said he deserves to install his own team — as other chairs traditionally have done. And they argued he has actually diluted his own power to give the rest of the party a say by opening up some coveted committee slots to election by DNC members. He has also pledged that 15 at-large DNC positions will be elected by DNC caucuses and councils. Martin's allies said his changes have empowered state and local leaders — and, at times, taken clout away from more Washington-oriented Democrats who are now upset over their loss of power. Pointing to Democrats' overperformance in special elections this year, they said his strategy is showing returns. 'Many people get comfortable with the status quo,' said James Skoufis, a member of the 'People's Cabinet' at the DNC. 'I would argue that the status quo is far riskier than transforming the DNC and, in the process, perhaps ruffling the feathers of some individuals who prefer the status quo.' Jaime Harrison, a former DNC chair, said that the internal strife that Martin is encountering is similar to what past leaders of the party experienced following their elections. 'My perspective is some of this is the normal thing that happens,' he said. 'You have a contentious DNC race and sometimes feelings get a little raw. But then people really start to focus on what's at hand.' Still, Harrison acknowledged, the fissures have at times overshadowed Martin's efforts. 'He's just putting in the work, and the sad part is that most people don't know because we've been focused lately on Democratic primaries and stuff that in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter,' he said. At the top of the list of recent party obsessions: Hogg and his vow to fund primary challenges to sitting Democrats. Martin's allies said Hogg, not the DNC chairman, is to blame for distracting the party. But even some of Martin's supporters have second-guessed his role in the drama, saying he should have forced Hogg out earlier, pointing to the fact that the young activist fundraised off of his fight with party leadership with digital ads that included the tagline, 'The old guard is pissed at me. Fight back,' according to screenshots shared with POLITICO. Other members, meanwhile, felt Martin should have kept Hogg in the fold, arguing it was a 'missed opportunity' for the party 'to capitalize on an asset that could've been so helpful for the party,' a third DNC member said, citing Hogg's enormous social media megaphone:'Does anyone else at the DNC have a million followers on X?' the person added. By his own admission, Martin, a little-known figure nationally who previously served as chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, has struggled to become more widely recognized. In the audio of the DNC meeting obtained by POLITICO, Martin said, 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win.' Some Democrats said that Martin was in his early days as chair and deserves the benefit of the doubt. 'Mr. Martin is just starting out,' said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who added the two have a relationship. 'You give people a bit more time before you start making evaluations.' But other Democratic lawmakers have yet to sit down with him. 'To tell you the truth, I don't know him. I haven't met him yet,' Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said when asked how Martin has done in his first months as chair. 'I am sure he's doing everything he can, but we can all improve our communication of what is going on with this regime.'
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's credibility problem on Iran
Stop me if you've heard this before: The United States goes to war in a Middle Eastern country starting with the letters 'I-R-A,' based on disputed and later-disproven intelligence about that country's pursuit of devastating weaponry. It happened two decades ago with Iraq; it's valid to ask whether it could be happening again with Iran. And it's a legitimate question in large part because President Donald Trump and his administration have credibility problems of their own making. They're asking the American people for a huge amount of faith on the most serious of issues, without having put in the work to build that trust. As Trump has increasingly flirted with joining Israel's strikes on Iran in recent days, he's argued that Iran has been very close to a nuclear weapon. 'I think they were a few weeks away from having one,' he said Wednesday, seemingly referring to the period before Israel first struck Iran's nuclear program last week. But that's very difficult to square with the March testimony of Trump's own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and plenty of other indicators. Gabbard testified less than three months ago that her own intelligence community 'continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She also said that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had 'not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' That testimony looms extremely large right now. CNN reported this week that the intelligence community has indeed estimated Iran was up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver a nuclear weapon to a target of its choosing. The administration and its allies have struggled to account for all of this. Trump on Tuesday effectively dismissed Gabbard's testimony, saying, 'I don't care what she said.' Gabbard has claimed she and Trump are on the 'same page.' An official in her office told CNN that 'just because Iran is not building a nuclear weapon right now, doesn't mean they aren't 'very close' as President Trump said.' Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma suggested to CNN's Jake Tapper on Wednesday that Gabbard had old information and that the Trump administration now has better information. 'In March, she was in her job for 30 days and [was] still getting handoff information from the I.C., the American intelligence community, from the Biden administration,' Mullin said. He added that the 'information was quite different.' But when pressed on what better information we have now, Mullin didn't go into too much detail. He noted that he had to be careful, while largely pointing to what Israeli intelligence had told the US. Signals from Democrats in Congress have been more mixed. Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, told NPR on Thursday that Iran 'probably likely' does have at least something of a nuclear weapons program. But the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, told CNN's Kasie Hunt on Wednesday that intelligence Gabbard cited hadn't really changed. He said that was the case as recently as Monday of this week. In response to Warner's comments, the White House pointed to recent comments from US Central Command chief Gen. Michael Kurilla, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that an Iranian 'sprint to a nuclear weapon' could produce enough weapons-grade material for 10 nuclear weapons within three weeks. But producing the material is not the same as having a bomb that's deliverable, which is the significant hurdle that underpins the intelligence community's much longer timeline. Warner suggested the administration was in the process of trying to 'cook the books.' 'When you cook intelligence, you end up with a war like Iraq, where a president at that point didn't follow the intelligence and the intelligence was manipulated,' the Virginia Democrat said. 'I worry that we may be seeing some of that going on.' So is that happening now? There's much we have to learn here. But to the extent Trump and his administration actually intend to build a case for war, they have done themselves few favors. Gabbard's testimony might be the biggest problem for the White House. Here was the administration less than three months ago – in a prepared statement, no less – saying that this just wasn't an immediate problem. It's possible for assessments to evolve and/or that Iran re-launched the program in the intervening period. But the administration hasn't done much of anything to signal any shifts before this week. At least with Iraq, the Bush administration was providing details of what it said the intelligence showed – claims that could be evaluated. Even the Kurilla comments the administration points to don't actually contradict what Gabbard said, what Warner is saying and what CNN has reported about US civilian intelligence community assessments. And even if Gabbard and those assessments got it wrong then, who's to say the administration isn't getting it wrong now? Trump's flippant response to the question about Gabbard's comments epitomized the distinct lack of details here. And then there's the relevant history, which adds weight to Warner's worries about cooking the books. When you're relaying sensitive intelligence, there's always a bit of faith involved. The administration can't share everything that it has, because that could jeopardize its operations and collection methods. But Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says. During his first term, he amassed more than 30,000 false and misleading claims, according to a Washington Post compilation. Trump often seems to say whatever's politically expedient at a given point in time. And the American people have noticed. A February Washington Post/Ipsos poll showed just 35% of Americans said Trump was 'honest and trustworthy'; 62% took the opposite view. That's a bad thing when the stakes are much lower; it's potentially much worse when the claims involved are about a case for war. The final point is that we already have evidence that the Trump administration could be politicizing intelligence. The administration back in March staked its attempts to rapidly deport undocumented immigrants on the idea that the government of Venezuela was somehow involved in an 'invasion' by members of the gang Tren de Aragua. But that's not actually what the intelligence showed. Indeed, a memo that was later released contradicted claims the administration was making. And both Reuters and The New York Times later reported that internal communications suggested some in the administration had injected politics into the intelligence process. According to the Times, Gabbard's chief of staff at one point wrote, 'We need to do some rewriting' and more analysis 'so this document is not used against the DNI or POTUS' – referring to Gabbard and Trump. Around this time, Gabbard fired the top two career officials leading the National Intelligence Council. The administration at the time suggested it was these nonpartisan officials who were politicizing intelligence. But the email contents strongly suggest politics loomed over how Trump's appointees were handling intelligence. All of which looms large over what happens next. The American people appear quite skeptical of striking Iran, and that could be doubly fraught given the administration's track record.
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Decision day approaches for Trump admin on controversial UN force that failed to disarm Hezbollah
JERUSALEM—The scandal-plagued U.N. mission set up to stop Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel will know in late August if the Trump administration plans to vote to discontinue its mandate at the U.N. Security Council. In interviews with Fox News Digital, several leading American and Israeli experts on the mandate have called for the U.S. government to pull the plug on the mandate because the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is an example of the U.N.'s ineffectiveness in stopping the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist movement. "Among countless failures by the United Nations in the Middle East, UNIFIL may be the most spectacular. Tasked with ensuring that Hezbollah would not rearm after the 2006 war, it patiently watched as Hezbollah became the largest non-state terrorist and military organization in the world. Stability in Lebanon — within reach only now that Israel has decapitated Hezbollah's leadership — will not be achieved through UNIFIL," the former U.S. Ambassador during the first Trump administration, David Friedman, told Fox News Digital. After the conclusion of the Second Lebanon War in 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah, the UNSC passed Resolution 1701, which outlined that the international force UNIFIL, along with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), was supposed to block Hezbollah's activity in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah joined Hamas in its war on the Jewish state a day after the Iranian regime-backed terrorist organization in Gaza invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, and slaughtered over 1,200 people, including more than 40 Americans. In October, Fox News Digital reported that UNIFIL soldiers had failed to stop Hezbollah's massive rocket and military weapons expansion since the mandate was implemented in 2006. Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon at the time accused UNIFIL of failing to enforce its mission to prevent the U.S.-designated terrorist movement Hezbollah from establishing military outposts on the border with Israel. Israel's incursion into southern Lebanon has revealed a military outpost about a mere 300 yards north of the border with the Jewish state that is filled with explosives and mines, according to Israel Defense Forces (IDF). ISRAEL ORDERS IDF TO SEIZE MORE GAZA TERRITORY IF HAMAS DOESN'T RELEASE HOSTAGESWhen asked if Israel seeks an end of the UNIFIl mandate, Jonathan Harounoff, international spokesperson for Israel's Mission to the United Nations, told Fox News Digital this week that "Israel is still evaluating the situation." A U.S. State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital that "We have nothing to announce at this time" about a vote against continuing the UNIFIL mandate. Dr. Zoe Levornik and Sarit Zehavi, from the Israel Alma Research and Education Center—one of the top think tanks assessing UNIFIL and Hezbollah—wrote on the organization's webpage on June 10: "Over the years, UNIFIL has had numerous opportunities to improve and fulfill its role, particularly in light of Israel's repeated warnings. Yet no real attempt has been made to alter the organization's conduct. There is no reason to believe that renewing the mandate—even with improvements—will bring about the necessary change that would make UNIFIL's presence in southern Lebanon relevant and effective in maintaining the security of both Israel and Lebanon." When confronted with the criticism from Alma about UNIFIL, the peacekeeping force's spokesman, Andrea Teneti, told Fox News Digital "The LAF continues to benefit from UNIFIL's support—not only to ensure full deployment in areas currently occupied by Israel, but also through training, capacity-building, and the development of essential capabilities needed to take over our mandated tasks on land and at sea. "The mission's relevance remains vital in maintaining an impartial international presence on the ground, helping to monitor the situation and reinforce the efforts of the LAF. Additionally, UNIFIL is providing essential support to local communities during this particularly challenging period, contributing to stability in the area despite the numerous shelling monitored and reported since 27 November 2024." He added "Implementation of 1701 is not with UNIFIL but with the parties. We are supporting the parties in the implementation of the mandate, but commitment is needed from both sides. In recent months, during this new political environment, LAF and UNIFIL have been recovering a large number of ammunition caches as well as positions used previously by Hezbollah. The situation is more stable than earlier, but air strikes are continuing and the stability is still fragile." Zehavi, who lives in northern Israel, where Hezbollah has caused severe destruction with missile fire, countered the UNIFIL spokesman's comments. She told Fox News Digital that all the things mentioned by UNIFIL "are secondary to the primary issue of the mandate, which is the disarmament of Hezbollah." Zehavi added that despite the UNIFIL spokesman claiming that UNIFIL seized ammunition used by Hezbollah, she noted that UNIFIL has provided no evidence. She asked "in which towns" Hezbollah is being disarmed. She stressed, "Where are the pictures? How come there are no proofs and only statements that they are doing that? As a resident of the north, I want to see proofs to remind everybody that the IDF showed proofs of the arms of Hezbollah in south Lebanon and brought them into Israel." She also asked where has UNIFIL been over the last 18 years in training the Lebanese army?" I think the United States and France can do that better than UNIFIL," mentioning the new mechanism set up to address violations via U.S. and French Generals who are in the region, she said. Zehavi said UNIFIL over the years "tied our hands" during the Israel-Hezbollah war. She added that Israel is enforcing the disarming of Hezbollah via continued military strikes in the south. The Biden administration and France brokered a fragile ceasefire in November between Hezbollah and Israel. The language of the ceasefire states it aims to "promote conditions for a permanent and comprehensive situation." The ceasefire ended 14 months of high-intensity warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. When asked about Zehavi's questions, Teneti said "All our findings—whether related to activities conducted with or without the Lebanese Armed Forces—are shared with the members of the Security Council and also transmitted to the Mechanism, as agreed by both Lebanon and Israel. This is our authorized reporting line. Additionally, all detailed information is published quarterly in the Secretary-General's report on the implementation of Resolution 1701, which is a public document." Pro-Hezbollah officials and soldiers within Lebanon's Army also remain a core problem, according to experts and media reports. In late January, a LAF chief reportedly sent a classified document to Hezbollah. The LAF's Suhil Bahij Gharb, who oversees military intelligence for southern Lebanon, secured the confidential material from a military facility run by the U.S., France and the U.N. interim force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The White House and the U.S. National Security Council did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital press queries.
