Odious, murderous initiative
Re “Odious initiative shows system’s pitfalls” (Page A1, March 20): I was born in Great Britain at the end of World War II. I grew up hearing about the Nazi atrocities on the peoples of Europe. I learned about the Nazi doctrine of legalized mass murder of people with mental deficiencies, gays and lesbians, and the horrible final solution for the Jews. British men and women gave up their lives to fight these evil deeds, and brave American boys left their homeland to stop the Nazi mass murder machine before it destroyed all of civilized Europe.
Then I pick up Friday’s Sacramento Bee and on the front page is an article about a lawyer who has a perverted idea of proposing a ballot measure to legalize the mass murder of gays and lesbians. For a moment, I ask what has gone wrong with the right of free speech in America? When is it taken too far, to the point of advocating mass murder?
It is like a return to 1930s Germany and the doctrine of the Nazis. How can someone pervert the right of free speech and seriously propose to legalize the mass murder of innocent people? Shame on this lawyer and all he stands for.
David Sinclair, El Dorado Hills
Too easy to propose bigotry
I find myself both incensed and saddened that in this day and time (not to mention in the state of California) that someone can so easily place on the ballot an initiative like the “Sodomite Suppression Act.”
The article details the initiative process and how this hurtful one might cause leaders to question. But my question is, what about the safety and rights of members of the LGBT community? In this state could someone, either because of personal or religious beliefs, develop an initiative aiming to kill members of the other minorities in this state? And would it be argued as a freedom-of-speech issue? I do not think so.
I grew up in the Deep South. I expected this there, but this has no place in a state that prides in diversity and acceptance. Anyone who questions the need for legislation to protect the members of the LGBT community only needs to read this hateful initiative.
Jerry Orgeron, Sacramento
Costs of climate change
Re “Capitol coalition proposes $1.1 billion drought relief” (Page A1, March 20): People who oppose taking steps to slow global warming say they are afraid of “big government” action and its costs. Ironically, those are precisely the consequences of failing to slow global warming. A report out of UC Davis estimated the 2014 drought would cost California more than $2 billion. California lawmakers are now proposing more than $1 billion in drought relief and discussing restrictions on water use.
The drought and its costs are unquestionably intensified by global warming. Hotter temperatures lead to higher water demand, drier conditions and a shrinking snowpack. The only way to avoid the associated costs and government regulations is to pass free market legislation to put a price on carbon pollution so that products’ prices reflect their true costs, including their impact on climate change.
Dana Nuccitelli, West Sacramento
Protect the groundwater
Re “Brown target of criticism on pollution, environment” (Page A1, March 19): While it’s true that Gov. Jerry Brown has taken great steps to address climate change, his silence as the oil and gas industry dumps toxic wastewater into protected drinking aquifers seriously undermines his green credentials. Touting his environmental record in Washington while Californians learn about a series of embarrassing environmental disasters at home does not square. Our governor is walking a fine line. He must address issues like contaminated water and lead poisoning in L.A.
Shoshanna Howard, Oakland
Keep Northern California water local
Re “L.A. water agency offers cash for Valley allotments” (Page A1, March 13): Local water should stay local. If a water agency has excess water to sell, it should be sold at a reasonable price to other local water agencies.
Do not give Southern California any cause to assume rights to our water. Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of how Los Angeles handled water acquisition from the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, the Owens Valley and Mono Lake, and how they are trying to suck Colorado dry by purchasing water understands this. If Southern California has excess water, do you really think they would ship to us? Doubtful.
Keep what we have and let Southern California, with its unquenchable thirst, build desalination plants and water storage.
Ruth Casler, Auburn
Water rules not tight enough
Re “Drought rules draw tighter” (Page A1, March 18): The climate change deniers have brought us to this crisis. We now have a permanent problem with water in the West, and the water board says we need to ask for water at restaurants and hotel laundries. Really? That’s the plan?
It is time to put a moratorium on all home building in the state, ask the farmers to “plant” windmills and solar, and demand that Los Angeles finance its own desalination plants. Without the water to make it, hydroelectric power is no longer dependable. Carbon offsets were a better-than-nothing plan, but we really need to be the “country” that says “No more!” to coal, gas and oil.
Kathleen Stricklin, Sacramento
Koons’ plexiglass puddles
Re “More on Koons” (Letters, March 20): Tsk, tsk. The emperor has no clothes. I think of that story every time I see a picture of the questionable artwork of Jeff Koons. It goes to show you the old adage remains true. You can sell Americans anything.
Sharon Larson, Fairfield
Enough Koons bashing
I’m tired of reading letters to the editor regarding Jeff Koons’ artwork. Pretty soon he will have to change the name from “Coloring Book” to “Dead Horse.”
Michele Rebensdorf, Elk Grove
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.