A match made in heaven?
Re "Gingrich courts the religious right," March 3
Newt Gingrich is twice-divorced. He was carrying on an extramarital affair while going after Bill Clinton for doing the same. He has "practiced" three separate religions, presumably one at a time.
In spite of his not living in Iowa, he was instrumental in punishing three state Supreme Court judges who decided in favor of marriage equality for Iowans. His campaign against marriage equality has to hurt his half-sister, who is a lesbian, as he advocates denying her the right to marry the person she loves. Family values? I don't think so.
Gingrich is not a supporter of anything but himself, and his record proves it.
I find it ironic that evangelicals would allow themselves to be wooed by now-Catholic Gingrich.
Catholics and evangelicals may agree on some social issues, yet it is the Catholic Church that has advocated for the rights of illegal immigrants. Catholic higher education has made greater inroads in embracing diversity on its campuses, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
Evangelicals should admit that their support for Gingrich is about politics, not morality. From a moral standpoint, I stand behind President Obama, who is a faithful husband and an attentive father.
Evangelical pastors, be more forthright and quit hiding behind the fact that God forgives sinners. I say this as an evangelical Christian for more than 20 years.
This article gives a pure, chilling picture of the fundamentalist right. Gingrich wants to assure them he "shares their values." It seems all right with them to cheat on your wife while publicly excoriating others for doing the same thing as long as you hate gays and oppose abortion.
My father, who died in 2005 at 87 and who was a devout Christian, lamented how these people "have turned Christianity into a four-letter word."
The price of 'green'
Re "Grand dream dims in glare of daylight," March 6
Thanks to The Times for shedding some grid-generated light on the latest green emperor with no clothes, Larry Eisenberg. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Community College District, perhaps not wanting to be labeled anti-green, has not yet given the director of its $5.7-billion campus rebuilding program the boot.
How did Eisenberg's firing from his previous post as facilities chief for Washington County, Oregon, "because of mismanagement," and his failure to disclose that his mismanagement extended to even his personal finances vis-a-vis his 1995 bankruptcy filing, qualify him for his next big position in our cash-strapped backyard?
One can only hypothesize that the district hasn't the guts to stand up for what it really needs: more classrooms.
There is a larger lesson to take from Eisenberg's confrontation with the physical realities of renewable energy on college campuses. Wind and solar power are quite land-intensive compared with fossil fuels. As the Legislature and many municipalities continue to mandate ever-increasing renewable energy goals, perhaps they should ask what industrial-scale renewable production will actually look like on the ground.
It seems more than a bit ironic that as we seek more compact and environmentally friendly development in our cities, we propose to power them with sprawling "clean" power complexes that will consume far greater amounts of land better suited to agricultural production and habitat preservation.
Richard G. Little
The writer is director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at USC.
Re "Outrage — and a reason to vote in the trustees race," Column, March 6
Though I wholeheartedly appreciate the Steve Lopez column and The Times' investigation, I am frustrated that the paper has provided virtually no coverage of the race for community college trustees. Lopez encourages voters to take Tuesday's election of trustees seriously, but how can we when there is no objective information available on the candidates?
I hope that in the future The Times will take these races more seriously and offer endorsements of trustee candidates.
Weighing a no-fly zone
Re "Lawmakers push no-fly zone as Obama hesitates," March 4
Some say establishing a no-fly zone over Libya would be an act of war against the Libyan state. But since we recognize that the current regime has no legitimacy, an "attack" on that illegitimate regime cannot be viewed as an attack on the state.
Our country, which was created by challenging a regime we declared had lost its legitimacy — a challenge that succeeded with foreign assistance — should be especially mindful of that distinction.
The Times headline should have said, "Lawmakers push war as Obama thinks."
Re "Border effort let guns into criminal hands," March 4