It remains to be seen whether Darrell Issa’s endorsement of Trump will hurt him [“Support of Trump could send Issa packing,” Aug. 10] but if it doesn’t, it should come as no surprise. After all, the system is broken. If the media were practicing responsible journalism, if voters voted rationally and the campaign process effectively weeded out the lesser-qualified candidates Trump would not be the Republican nominee.

Besides, other than being blunt instead of speaking in code, Trump’s platform is little different than that of most Republican politicians, and a district that reelected Issa seven times might not be as alarmed about Trump as they should be, and might not consider Issa’s endorsement of Trump to be a negative. But we can hold out hope for a little sanity at long last.

Dan Jacobs, Mira Mesa


I appreciate the background info on Props 65 and 67 [“Plastics Industry Double Bags November Ballot,” Aug. 10] that will be on the California Ballot regarding the status of the one-time-use plastic bag. Surprise! Sustainability-wise, plastic bags are actually easier on the environment than paper bags and some reusable shopping bags. Plastic bags are made from oil (cheaper now), they are lightweight and have a reduced shipping weight, leaving less of a carbon footprint when transported.

The major issue with plastic bags is that only 5 percent are recycled, leaving the majority of them to linger in our landfills, oceans, other waterways and alleys. They are not even accepted in our blue bins.

Paper bags are made from some recycled paper or from pulp shavings from trees. Various chemicals are applied to the pulp along with specific dyes—with all these chemicals eventually leaching into our environment. As paper bags weigh more than the plastic ones there is an increased freight cost and carbon footprint in transporting paper bags, but they can be recycled.

So, are reusable shopping bags the answer? Maybe—but not if they are made of cotton products. More lethal pesticides (aldicarp) are used to produce cotton than any other crop in the world. These chemicals are lethal to the soil and to cotton growers and a real danger to those who process cotton for clothing and home furnishings.

So as not to complete my comments under a negative light, there is hope for all of us as we enter into a new age as “no plastic baggers,” to be eco-friendly while lingering in the lines at Trader Joe’s, look to be carrying trendy jute or hemp bags—the ones guaranteed to be organically-grown, 100 percent natural fiber, sweatshop-free, chemically-free and food safe. See you—and your new bags—at the checkout!

Donna Shanske, Bankers Hill


I applaud Ed Decker’s perennial facility with being able to write very creative/controversial/scintillating prose, but I must respectfully disagree with his latest column [“Avoiding the draft a smart move by Trump,” Aug. 10].

Why? Currently, while I’m a staunch Donald Trump supporter, I’ve also previously written about the salutary benefits of re-instating the draft because I respectfully believe we had a much better educated [not necessarily better trained] U.S. Army when we had universal conscription. My anecdotal poster boy is PFC Melbardis who was a Yale graduate and who had an IQ off the charts [I soon saw to it that he was promoted to Specialist (Corporal and later “buck” Sergeant)] and who served with me when we were the closest combat artillery unit (battalion) to North Korea during the middle ’60s.

Personally/anecdotally, I don’t think that there are too many men or women either currently serving within our enlisted ranks with the credentials and aptitude of someone like Melbardis. Officers weren’t supposed to fraternize officially with enlisted personnel, but Melbardis, who served with me in our fire direction center, and I often had lengthy chats and we became close comrades when we served together in Korea. Together with another fellow U.S. Army junior Officer we formulated the Divisional Top-Secret Artillery Battle plan for the Kaesong, Munsan and Seoul axis (that fortunately we/others didn’t have to utilize).

Additionally, I think that both men and women should serve actively in the Armed Forces, or other formalized organization of public service, for at least two years and a number of years TBD in reserve. During the Vietnam War era, it was two years of active service and six years of active reserve.

Meanwhile, Edwin, with kind personal regards and sincere best wishes to you and everyone associated with San Diego CityBeat, I remain cordially yours.

Fred Harden III, San Diego


See all events on Monday, Oct 24