Budget cuts andcommunity clinics
Regarding “A compassionate budget for state's future” (Dialog, June 29):
The faith leaders are right – a budget is a moral document that reflects the values of a society. A budget is also a plan. It tells us where we choose to be in the future.
As medical director of the Vista Community Clinic, every day I see families in our clinics who struggle to make ends meet. With the current economic situation, working families are making heart-breaking choices: food or medicine, doctor visits or rent. The effects of these decisions are felt by all of society.
When children and adults go without preventive care, several things happen. First, they end up in the emergency room unnecessarily. This costs money and crowds emergency departments. Second, diseases go undiagnosed and untreated. When diseases such as diabetes and cancer are not diagnosed in early stages, treatment is more costly and, in many cases, it may be too late to treat at all.
The state has to make some difficult decisions. Budget cuts that affect community clinics affect our communities' health. They are short-term solutions with long-term consequences. Is this the future California wants?
KELLY MOTADEL
Vista
Finding fault withfindings on hate groups
Regarding “Hate groups taking root in California” (Dialog, June 29):
According to Heidi Beirich, of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, I'm a hate-monger because I'm firmly against assisting those who illegally come here from any country, and I have said so publicly. Beirich seems to believe that disagreement with her position or beliefs constitutes being hateful, rather than an expression of a different viewpoint on a serious issue.
According to her, the “raging national debate over immigration” (notice she did not call it illegal immigration) has led to expressions of “hate” against, in particular, Latinos. Any physical attack against another person is abhorrent and should be fully prosecuted. But the last time I checked, it is completely legal to peacefully demonstrate in a public place, including the public street in front of a church that encourages and supports illegal immigrants – mostly from several Latin American countries – in finding work where their status won't be checked. That is not a demonstration of hate, only a protestation of the state and federal governments' failure to enforce existing immigration laws.
I will agree with her on one point: that some uninformed and/or ignorant people are easily swayed by the comments of those with an ax to grind. We all need to get educated about this difficult issue, learn the facts and know when someone is trying to sell us a bill of goods.
LAURAINE T. DWYER
Rancho Peñasquitos
Desalination projectneeds to proceed
Regarding “Cloudy waters” (Dialog, June 29):
The Carlsbad desalination project has been stuck at the concept stage for how long now, five years? Yet the envirocrats (environmental bureaucrats) are still creating new delays? I recently read about a similar desalination project in Australia, where the time between concept to completion is four years. Thanks in part to organizations such as Surfrider, these delays will translate into millions of dollars in increased construction and material costs. Care to guess who will pick up the tab? I say bill the delaying parties.
DANIEL MARLER
San Marcos
Attorney Marco Gonzalez's assertion that it's cheaper and uses less energy to use recycled sewage than desalinating ocean water for potable water supply is obviously wrong. The same technology is used – reverse osmosis. Clearly, more energy and more processing are required to purify sewage than relatively cleaner ocean water. That's bound to cost more.
And your editorial, “Permit Poseidon's plant/Claims of dire harm to nature are hollow” (June 29), is correct that the desalination project should proceed promptly. Given the choice, society would doubtless prefer a “healthy land ecosystem” with an adequate water supply over exaggerated claims of harm to a “healthy ocean ecosystem.” People should always be given top priority. Doing otherwise raises questions of motivation.
JOHN SUHR
La Mesa
Military serviceon a resume
Regarding “No brownie points for military service” (Dialog, June 29):
I'd like to thank retired Army Sergeant George Carroll for his Community Essay. Carroll is right on the mark. I retired from the Navy after 30 great years of service. With five tours as a command master chief, including an aircraft carrier, running the day-to-day operations of a crew comprised of more than 3,000 men and women, I was certain that an employer would find my experience beneficial.
I was surprised to find it extremely difficult to find an employer that would give me an opportunity. Even those organizations that are contracted by the military to run their family service centers would not give me the time of day when it came to employment.
While the military continues to strive to be an “employer of choice,” those in the civilian sector have a long way to go before they realize the largely untapped resource that the military provides. I'm fortunate that I have educational benefits and am completing my college degree. Hopefully, my college degree coupled with my military experience will open a door or two in the civilian sector.
RUBEN PAQUIAN
Chula Vista
When George Carroll complains about not being able to find a job, it is clear it has nothing to do with his puffed-up resume. It does, however, have everything to do with his whining attitude. It is apparent that he is not familiar with what returning veterans have historically faced: indifferent civilians who have a business to run, be it private or institutional.
Most Americans have no idea what military life is all about, but one thing it traditionally demanded was sacrifice. One gives up prime years of one's life to do his or her duty in what should be a rigorous tour in a highly hierarchical and structured world where individual wants are very secondary.
As one who spent four years as a Marine (including a complimentary year in Vietnam as a field radio operator with a rifle company), I expected no guarantees upon my return to civilian life. I was glad to return to my former life as a “slimy civilian” and the uncertain turns it offered. The military has a saying for people like Carroll: “Sounds like a personal problem.”
SCOTT FULLERTON
El Centro
Assessing Obama onfundraising, patriotism
Regarding “What Obama is not: naive” (Opinion, June 21):
When Barack Obama was an upstart politician fighting for a nomination, David Brooks and other Republican columnists wrote some fair analysis about the candidate. But now that Obama is a front-runner threatening to actually win the White House, Brooks has joined the chorus of Republican Obama-bashers.
This column is the standard partisan hogwash, and the message is not only unfair but essentially racist. Brooks offers false surprise at the notion that Obama is not really an idealistic softy who knows nothing of real political pragmatism. He expresses fake dismay at the idea that Obama has the focus, toughness and ambition to actually win a high stakes political game.
In describing Obama's transformation into “Fast Eddie Obama,” Brooks repeats an outdated, racist cliche: we can tolerate the “Good Negro” as long as he knows his place, seems naive, and doesn't actually try to behave like a white man, but let him aspire to actual power and accomplishment, and he becomes suspicious, even dangerous.
Try to imagine a Republican columnist criticizing a mainstream white candidate for what is essentially standard political practice. After eight years of George Bush, they can't beat Obama talking about the economy, or foreign policy or any issues that matter, so they go after Obama's right to behave like a politician. In truth, Obama is nothing more or less than a winner, with the smarts and the ambition to master the ruthless game that Republicans themselves have perfected in recent decades.
MARK PYLE
Lakeside
Regarding “Is Obama American enough?” (Opinion, July 2):
Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. states that Barack Obama “probably understands better than many of his fellow native-born citizens what it means to be an American.” Whoa, get a grip. There is nothing in Obama's background that makes him any different than many other Americans. Most of us came to be here by way of immigrants. He may have a biracial perspective that is more narrowly shared, but his situation, other than wealth, is fairly common in these United States.
Writes Navarrette: “If you really want to understand patriotism, don't talk to those of us who were born here through no effort of our own.” I beg to differ; new immigrants do not have an exclusive on patriotism. They flock to America because of the patriotic beliefs of those who have sacrificed life and limb to preserve the Founding Fathers' vision of “one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
Regardless of how he explains his reluctance to wear an American flag lapel pin or to show reverence for the national anthem, he will be viewed to be unpatriotic and un-American by many, and rightly so. While his service to America as an elected representative is admirable, that does not qualify him to lecture about patriotism.
Coming from a family of immigrants who have lost family and friends who served and fought to preserve the freedoms so cherished in American, I am ashamed to find the Democratic Party endorsing a candidate with such a narrow perspective. I can not find it within my heart to support such arrogance and ignorance.
Obama needs to take a personal inventory to determine whether he is a suitable candidate to represent the United States of America. Perhaps he has more to learn about what it takes to lead a nation of immigrants. This is not about race.
SHARON WILSON
Normal Heights
Taking issue withKristol on ad
Regarding “Letting others protect our nation” (Opinion, June 24):
Commentator William Kristol finds the new MoveOn.org ad about John McCain's Iraq policy “creepy.” He says it is because he thinks the mom in it is selfish for not volunteering her baby son to be part of McCain's 100-year occupation of Iraq. He says it suggests that “military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.” This ranting comes from a pro-Iraq war neoconservative who chose not to serve in the miliary himself. That's creepy!
If Kristol had volunteered for military service like many of us did, he might understand the sentiment of the mom in MoveOn.org's ad. Few mothers want to see their sons or daughters go off to war, even though they fully support them in that choice. Kristol spared his mother that anguish and very selfishly put in on my mom. Spare us all your lecture on selfishness and go volunteer in the Peace Corps. It's not too late, even for you.
PETER ZSCHIESCHE
San Diego
Assailing McCainon offshore drilling
So John McCain now wants to end the offshore drilling moratorium to help ease high gas prices (“McCain urges end to offshore drilling moratorium to help ease high gas prices,” News, June 17). Who knows, that might help lower gasoline prices a few cents a gallon in five years or so.
More than a century ago our great-grandparents depended on whale blubber to light their lamps. When it became evident there was not enough blubber to meet our energy needs, we switched to petroleum. If our ancestors thought like John McCain the attempted solution would have been to hunt more whales so as to not hurt the whaling industry.
The time has come to search for an affordable replacement for petroleum even if it means that the oil industry eventually sees a reduction in demand and speculators see a reduction in profits. But the Republicans find this unacceptable. They voted down a bill that would have used windfall profits to do the necessary research. Last year voters rejected a plan that would have funded energy research by simply charging the oil companies a relatively small amount for the oil they pump out of the California soil the way other states do. It might have raised the price of gas by 3 cents but the oil companies spent millions convincing us that it was an evil tax that would raise gas prices. Since the bill failed, and the price of gas has gone up at least $1.50.
When we vote for president and members of Congress this November, we need to consider whether we want America to become the leader in new, affordable energy production. Or, do we want an energy policy of hunting more whales.
MIKE THALLER
Bonita
Don't blame GOP
on drilling issue
In “Weighing the effects of ANWR drilling” (Letters, July 2), a reader wishes to inform readers that Republicans had control of Congress and the White House for six long years, and that if offshore and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling was so important, why didn't it happen then? The reader should study her history.
In 1995, the Republican Congress enacted legislation to drill, in the face of Democrats' opposition, only to have (then) President Clinton veto the legislation out of hand. In the face of continuous united Democratic Party opposition, the two-thirds majority could not be obtained and thus the veto could not be over-ridden.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer is correct (“The politics of oil and energy,” Opinion, June 23). The Democrats truly are standing in the way of drilling, and have been doing so for many years. Remember that the next time you line up to buy gas – and the next, and the next.
PETER M. HEKMAN
San Diego
