Stress on an alliance
Re "Israel shrugs off allies' ire," Sept. 11
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may well be, as former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, an "ungrateful ally" of the United States; he is also a liability.
U.S.-Israel relations; the GOP presidential debate and climate change; California's high-speed rail project
Letters to the editor
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a statement on Sept. 10…
His intransigence has made Israel more vulnerable than he realizes. Like the biblical Samson, who found out too late that his physical prowess was no match for the wiles of Delilah, Netanyahu should realize that his inflexible foreign policy makes him as blind to reality as Samson.
The United States needs to vacate the diplomatic edifice it shares with Netanyahu (though not with the Israeli people) before he brings the whole structure down on both of them.
Peter A. O'Reilly
Claremont
Gates called Israel an "ungrateful ally."
Last month, Israel suffered 178 terrorist attacks, a significant increase from the 53 that took place in July, according to Israel's security agency.
A question for Gates: How many attacks on the United States would you tolerate before taking military action to stop those attacks?
Furthermore, other than Britain, who among our allies is "grateful?"
Harvey B. Schechter
Beverly Hills
Re "Food co-op turns into battleground over Israeli products," Sept. 9
I am a liberal Democrat, and I am disgusted by the extreme left in California that uses Israel as a whipping boy for their misguided causes.
These anti-Israel lefties are to the Democrats what the "tea party" members are to the Republicans — and this isn't a compliment. The fact that a proponent of the boycott of Israeli goods admits that the battle is about more than Israel says everything.
They should stick closer to home in chasing their windmills of injustice.
Bruce Kaye
West Hollywood
Rick Perry, scientifically
Re "He's no Galileo," Editorial, Sept. 9
I watched the debate because it was important to see who the Republicans in the audience supported. It was astonishing how many times they applauded the most ridiculous statements, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry's ignorance about climate change.
But when he compared himself to Galileo, my husband and I turned to each other and burst out laughing. He doesn't even know what Galileo did or he certainly wouldn't have aligned himself with him — all that science and all.
And this is who the Republicans consider presidential? He is another Bachmann/Palin retread — simply unbelievable.
Carolyn Crandall
Camarillo
I suppose there are actually some real climate-change deniers. But the majority of "non-enthusiasts," including Perry, understand that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that our industrial society produces a lot of the stuff. It's just that we think "cost/benefit."
How much will it cost to lower the temperature by a few degrees 100 or 200 years from now? What about adapting to inevitable change?
It would be crazy to lay an economy to waste in a crusade for anti-carbon purity.
Zack Kircher
Los Angeles
If you have ever taken your doctor's advice or driven a car, you trust the scientific process. The majority of Democrats, independents and Republicans (excluding tea party members) believe the climate is changing. If you trust the majority of the world's climate scientists who say man is largely responsible, it is time to speak up.
Congress is only a reflection of those participating in democracy. Its members do not create political will; they respond to it. Yet denialists are the loudest ones talking.
Economists repeatedly say we need to price carbon. A revenue-neutral fee on carbon would send a clear price signal to clean-tech investors that will encourage lasting jobs.
The disengaged middle of our country needs to snap out of it and call their representatives today.
Amy Hoyt Bennett
Encinitas
Making tracks in California
Re "Deficit could derail bullet train," Sept. 8
The current plan for California's high-speed rail shows why government projects are increasingly unpopular. It makes little sense to build the first segment between Chowchilla and Bakersfield, where few people would use it. This could easily become a white elephant.
It makes more sense to build the first segments from San Francisco to San Jose and from Los Angeles to Anaheim or Riverside. We should start in the north and the south and then link up in the middle.
If China can build the world's most advanced bullet train from the Shanghai airport to the city, why can't we do something similar?
Roman Nykolyshyn
Pasadena
What possible reason can there be for a commitment that could cost upward of $65 billion? Who would really benefit from the end result?
Perhaps we could all jump on the train and, in less time than it takes to play a baseball game, be in San Francisco. Or we could use a fraction of this money to repair California's decaying infrastructure and keep our parks open.
Rodney McKinney
La Mirada
In Cuba, it's about freedom
FEATURED
MORE:
Advertisement
