Pro- and anti-labor protests in several states; conservative principles; the nest-egg myth

States’ labor pains

Re “Union fights escalate in three states,” Feb. 23

Private unions negotiate with the owner of the company or its representatives. Private companies know what they can afford to negotiate, and the idea is to keep both sides financially healthy.

Public unions negotiate with elected officials, and the taxpayers (the owners of the company) have very little say in the negotiations. The elected officials exchange political support from the unions for a favorable contract for the public employees and send the bill to the taxpayer. One side is financially healthy: public employees, the elected officials and the union. The other — the taxpayers — is not.

Understand the difference between private and public unions, and you will understand the debate.

Bob Arranaga

Eagle Rock

For all who have been beating the drum for so long against the poor, Medicare, Social Security and so on (you know who you are): I always thought that the most beautiful bird in the world was the chicken coming home to roost. Your chickens are just beginning to flock in.

I feel this is the very way things started to unravel in the Middle East. There was too big a gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Think it can’t happen here? Keep it up and we shall see.

Chuck Malik

Santa Maria

The major reason Republican governors are taking up anti-union legislation is not to balance their states’ budgets. The real reason is to cancel out their political opponents in 2012.

Ever since the Supreme Court struck down a key portion of the McCain-Feingold law, the political landscape has changed to favor corporations. Just look at the 2010 elections.

Now if the GOP breaks the unions in key battleground states in 2012 and puts middle-class citizens out of work, the 2012 presidential election will surely go to the Republicans.

Joe Martinez

El Segundo

When core values collide

Re “The pillars of conservatism,” Opinion, Feb. 21

The problem with Frank Cannon’s thesis that moral or social values should constitute a fundamental part of the conservatives’ message is: Precisely whose morality are we to live by? Most conservative voters’ values do not resonate with many of us who used to identify as conservatives.

I accept Henry David Thoreau’s formula, “That government is best which governs least.” A political philosophy that wants to break down Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state and have “intelligent design” taught in public schools rather than in Sunday school is decidedly not conservative.

Those of us who believe that the government should not stick its nose where it does not belong cannot see why conservatives’ notion of personal morality should be legislated for the rest of us.

Gordon J. Louttit

Manhattan Beach

Though Cannon says that true conservatives understand historical reality, perhaps he should look back on what history has told us: Evolution happens. I’m not talking about the scientific theory, although I believe in that too, but rather the social evolution of history.

Conservatives have been on the losing side of much social progress (women’s rights and civil rights to name a couple) and are currently in the process of losing the fight against rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

What Cannon is clearly missing is that the Republicans who have agreed to a “truce,” as he calls it, are just setting themselves up for the inevitable: social progress against stagnant conservative ideals.

Brendan Baer

Tustin

Cannon argues that fiscal conservatives should not abandon social issues (he mentions gay marriage and abortion) in favor of economic concerns; that is, he argues that conservatives should push for limited government, except when it comes to a woman’s body or a gay man’s family.

So, small government for Cannon but not for me? Sorry, but I’m not persuaded.

Raphael Mazor

Long Beach

Breaking a few nest eggs

Re “The nest-egg myth,” Opinion, Feb. 20

The societal policy that deprives younger Americans of healthcare while burdening them with the cost of providing healthcare to older Americans is unconscionable and irrational. Many younger Americans are in no better position to pay for their healthcare than older Americans.

Further, contrary to Susan Jacoby’s assertion, many older Americans have too much access to healthcare. The amount of money Medicare spends to extend the lives of the terminally ill a few months is a disgrace. Many of those patients belong in hospice care, not intensive-care units.

The government should not be preserving the estates of older Americans on the backs of younger Americans.

John Hart

Los Angeles

The middle class is being asked to sacrifice again for another bailout, this time by the Republicans’ relentless attacks on Social Security and Medicare. This, after Main Street bailed out Wall Street, saving the fortunes of the wealthy. Wall Streeters are back to making obscene amounts of money. It does not seem unreasonable to ask the wealthy to contribute to lower the deficit in the form of tax hikes, but instead they receive an extension of the Bush tax cuts and Republicans attack the social safety net.

For some seniors, Social Security is the only security they have to look forward to.

Ted Foster

Venice

No to Target

Re “Target’s turnaround,” Editorial, Feb. 22

Any gay rights advocate worth his salt should not consider Target’s new political donations policy a victory.

Target’s decision has been interpreted as an effort to make amends with customers who were

offended by the company’s $150,000 donation to a pro-business group that backed an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate. The policy, which simply requires donations to be cleared by a committee of Target executives, is a feeble attempt to mend the company’s relationship with those who support the LGBT community.

Not only does this trivial policy revision undermine the backlash that the news of this donation caused, it also ensures that Target will continue to support those who can protect the company’s interests, no matter their position on gay rights issues.

Maura Pagano

Seattle

Just terrorists

Re “Resettling the Uighurs,” Editorial, Feb. 21

The Uighurs were apprehended in Afghanistan undergoing training to be used in acts of terrorism against the Chinese government and people.

Had Americans been apprehended by the Chinese while undergoing terrorist training for acts of terrorism against the United States, the White House would be demanding their return to the U.S. We have instead provided the Uighurs with havens and financial support. And now they are demanding resettlement in the United States.

We can no longer afford to pick and choose which terrorists we will support and which ones we will oppose. To paraphrase, a terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist.

Doris Rivera

Victorville

Danger calling

Re “Phones trigger brain activity in study,” Feb. 23

A new study says that the use of cellphones affects the brain. Well, let’s see: People become oblivious to all around them, and rude and isolated, while they turn into zombies. They speak loudly without any regard for the rest of us who are subjected against our will to their conversational nonsense. They are completely unaware of everything.

For this they need a study? I think not.

Frances Terrell Lippman

Sherman Oaks

An afterword

Re “Revolutionary wisdom: A primer,” Opinion, Feb. 20

The advice that Gene Sharp provides in his guide to nonviolent revolution needs the following caution: No amount of structural change can compensate for obstacles produced by the temperaments of a population. Real democracy needs people who feel compassion for others regardless of tribe or religion.

The distribution of temperaments of a population is not changed by the overthrow of its leaders.

Sergei Heurlin

Culver City