Coliseum games
Re "Coliseum probe brings three arrests," March 23, and "Coliseum case widens; six charged," March 24
What explains the fact that a newspaper usually is the originating source that produces an investigation into financial irregularities or other illegal activity?
Why is it not a city, county or state agency — which, theoretically, employ people whose job it is to prevent or uncover precisely this type of wrongdoing?
If our government agencies are so incompetent, why do we bother paying for multiple layers of bureaucracy? Why not turn over all monitoring, auditing and related functions to an outside, independent private entity and rid ourselves of the costly dead weight of an incompetent bureaucracy that rarely is the first to recognize (much less reveal) impropriety and illegal activities?
Ernie Lazar
Palm Springs
As attorney Joseph Welch once famously wondered — did Sen. Joseph McCarthy have "no sense of decency" regarding the way he destroyed lives — so one has to wonder whether the officials on the Coliseum Commission feel any responsibility for the mess.
What exactly were they doing while the public treasury and the public trust were being robbed? How exactly can they justify retaining the staffers they had monitoring Coliseum activities on their behalf?
When will the public demand that those at the top, and those who work for them, earn their salaries, pensions and privileges?
Godfrey Harris
Encino
I found the comments from City Councilman Bernard C. Parks and county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky regarding the recent arrests quite self-serving.
As you wrote, Parks said that the "events were predictable. But it's a horribly unfortunate situation for the city and this historic facility."
And you quoted Yaroslavsky: "It's the beginning of the end of a long and sordid tale of corruption and betrayal of the public trust."
Weren't both officials on the commission? Is there sand in the meeting rooms where they buried their heads while all this was going on?
Just pathetic — and another reason they should be fired for their incompetence.
Steve Owen
San Diego
Debating the healthcare law
Re "Justices tackle heart of health debate," March 27
As a physician, I find it incomprehensible that people do not want the mandate requiring all to have healthcare insurance.
As has been stated, if you own a car, the government requires that you buy car insurance, and homeowners living in flood-prone areas have to buy flood insurance. So in my opinion, if you live and breathe, you should have to have health insurance.
Of course your option — if you truly want to be free of regulations — is to opt out (choose living or breathing or both).
Kim Bader
Los Angeles
"I don't want the government telling me I have to buy something," says the young woman in the article. It's a common refrain.
But that's already the case for a number of "products" consumed on an as-needed basis, including police and fire protection, transportation infrastructure, national security and emergency medical treatment.
It's time that something as essential and justifiable as medical care for all be moved into the realm of provisions afforded to those with the good fortune of being citizens of a country that is one of history's greatest stories.
If that takes us one step closer to a dreaded socialist state, then why not do away with the other aforementioned "freebies" that the government makes us pay for?
Robert Bruce
Long Beach
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says an argument regarding President Obama's healthcare law is "quite similar" to the Supreme Court's 1937 ruling on the Social Security act.
Does this imply that if the court rules against the healthcare insurance mandate, Social Security will be the next to go?
Sharon Dirlam
Santa Barbara
Regarding the quote from GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum that healthcare cannot be a right because "rights come from our creator": Is not the human body in the creator's image?
Why wouldn't we want to do everything possible to maintain the well-being of that which is in the creator's image?
Sounds like Santorum prefers the mandate of sickness, pain and suffering to that of a healthy, happy life. No thanks.
Julie Bixby
Huntington Beach
Re "Healthcare law's day in court,'' Editorial, March 26
I disagree with your assertion regarding the individual mandate.
I value my freedom tremendously. If our government can require me to purchase medical insurance, what comes next: The kind of food I eat? How often I must exercise?
I don't place much trust in our government. Once the door is opened to allowing government to make me buy insurance, the time will come when that same government will dictate what kind of medical services I can get.
When government can control what I must do, I loose freedom. And isn't freedom the reason our country is so great?
Clarence Dixon
Los Angeles
