What about the children?

Re "Accused priest released on bail" (Our Region, Jan. 10): As I read the article regarding the molestation case against Catholic priest Uriel Ojeda, I kept thinking about the children in that parish who are witnessing the support of this priest by their families.

How likely are they to come forward if they, heaven forbid, are ever victims of sexual abuse when they've seen their mothers and fathers support this 32-year-old man who the district attorney says admitted molesting a child under the age of 14?

The alleged sexual abuse of this child will forever cloud her future, and the fact that so many in the parish community are supporting her alleged abuser will only increase her pain and confusion.

– Luann Erickson, Carmichael

Accuser deserves apology

Re "Sacramento prosecutor says priest confessed to molestation" (Page A1, Jan. 6): We are glad that Sacramento prosecutors fought hard to keep Father Ojeda's bail at the maximum possible level, especially after it was revealed that he reportedly has confessed to his crimes.

Given this confession, we also find the defense attorney's excuse – that "the diocese made it all up" – offensive and hurtful to the alleged victim. We would hope that he will personally apologize to the young accuser immediately for his shameful comments.

– Francisco Chavez, West Sacramento

Santorum unworthy

Re "Santorum sheds loser label, becomes a worthy challenger" (Viewpoints, Jan 6.): I recently watched Rick Santorum interviewed on the "Today" show hoping to hear some interesting insights. I wish I could agree that he is a worthy candidate; our country needs one. When asked about birth control, he said it was against his beliefs (which is a personal choice) but then continued to say it contributed to unwanted pregnancy. That defies any logic.

I don't think we need any more presidents to distort facts to their point of view. Worthy? Sadly, no.

– Pam Beckman-Erbe, Elk Grove

Water bond a boondoggle

Re "State can't wait to upgrade water system" (Viewpoints, Jan. 6): Timothy Quinn assumes a California population of 60 million by 2050. But the population growth rate can be dramatically reduced through investment in voluntary family planning facilities. They would help reduce unplanned pregnancies, which now represent over 40 percent of births in California.

Also, a campaign to conserve water should be included in any water plan. Through such means, our water needs could be held to sustainable levels without expansion of existing facilities. Build, build, build is no longer an option. We cannot continue to grow forever.

The November 2012 water bond issue is awash with billions in pork, including the infamous "Bass" Lake. Let's call this the Dirty, Unsafe, Unneeded Water Supply Ballot Measure of 2012.

– Evan Jones, Sacramento

Another question for Rice

Re "A Conversation with Condoleezza Rice" (Living Here, Jan. 9): Condoleezza Rice and others of her administration make me so mad – and The Bee was oh so soft on her. Did she pre-select your questions?

This critical question was missing: "Dr. Rice, why did you condone and perpetuate the spread of lies about weapons of mass destruction that tipped our nation into a ruinous war in Iraq?"

– David Wright, Sacramento

Fraud claims exaggerated

Re "Budget cuts make targets of aged, disabled" (Viewpoints, Jan. 7): Is Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully opposed to the devastating cuts in In-Home Supportive Services that target some of our most vulnerable citizens?

Silly me! I should have known that it was just another rant against the nonexistent "massive" fraud in IHSS.

Scully's arrest and conviction rate represents less than 1 percent of the more than 12,000 Sacramento County IHSS recipients. Gov. Jerry Brown recognizes that IHSS fraud does not warrant tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for ineffective programs, like having recipients affixing fingerprints to time sheets.

Any fraud – public or private – is wrong and should be investigated and punished. But the current budget crisis requires that we prioritize.

– Steve Mehlman, Sacramento

Where's my line?

Re "TSA shortcut line starts at both airport terminals" (Our Region, Jan. 6): How can a government agency provide special care for the rich and famous at taxpayers' expense? I do not begrudge the airlines paying special attention to their frequent fliers with special perks. People pay for those perks.

However, when you start using my tax dollars, through Transportation Security Administration funds, then I begin to wonder.

I also wonder if TSA and the airport have the authority to create and restrict those lines and where they obtained that authority.

– John J. Speight, Roseville

In defense of wolves

Re "Call of the wild comes back to Golden State" (Editorials, Jan. 5): Thank you for your excellent editorial. I have to say how distressing it is to hear that, with only one known wolf in the state, ranchers are already complaining.

I love wolves. I think they are magnificent, beautiful animals, and I am glad that they are now protected in this state under the Endangered Species Act. I don't want to see California go the way of Idaho and Montana, states full of hatred for wolves for no justifiable, scientific reason.

As your editorial shows, wolves are good for California.

– Janet Hoben, Burbank

Save money, hire #2

Re "CSU offers up lame excuses for high salaries" (Viewpoints, Jan. 10): How about this – hire second best, they try harder! If what we have now is perceived as the best, we are in big trouble.

– Fred and Maggie Crowder, Grass Valley

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

---

WRITE US A LETTER

Include: Name, mailing address and phone number.

Length: 150 words or less.

BEST WAY TO SUBMIT

Online form: www.sacbee.com/sendletter

E-mail: letters@sacbee.com Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

• Read more articles by