Afghanistan: Let's get specific

Re "General rebuked for speech" (Page A1, Oct. 5): Afghanistan has a well-deserved reputation for giving bloody noses to foreign powers.

When I served in the Army, my very first question was, "What's the mission?" If commanders don't have a specific mission, there is con- stant danger of attacking the wrong hill. Are we there to transform a tribal society into an American de- mocracy (good luck to that) or to eliminate those who would attempt more terror attacks on America?

We can attempt to fill every village and the wide-open spaces of the country with American troops, or we can specifically seek out the enemy leadership and eliminate them.

After all, if you have a brain tumor, would you prefer the surgeon use a scalpel or a sledgehammer?

- James E. Longhofer, Placerville

Laws are mere 'suggestions'?

Re "Video fights illegal turns in capital" (Our Region, Oct. 5): So, the city and county have decided to use their new video cameras to ticket right-turn violators, not just those who run straight through red lights. And the expected yapping of put-upon violators is sweeping over the area.

Wow! Once again, the inalienable right of people to pick and choose which laws they will obey is under attack. And as the willful violators lament, they are being singled out by authorities who are merely do- ing it for the almighty buck. Officials contend it's about safety.

Hilarious, I say. Better than the comics. Unfortunately, it illustrates the contempt that more people are adopting regarding societal behavior. Individuals are deciding that rules and laws are "suggestions" rather than required behavior designed to provide all of us with a safe environment. Violators are saying that their immediate needs and wants are more important than our collective safety.

To city and county officials, I say keep sending out those tickets and collect tons of money. And to violators, if you don't want to pay, stop breaking the law.

- Richard Thorn, Orangevale

Key questions in homeless issue

Re "Homeless 'safe ground' not quite Eden, but a step" (Forum, Oct. 4): In evaluating any proposal to accommodate unsheltered homeless people, our City Council and Board of Supervisors should ask:

Does it unite our community around sane as well as safe solutions to this dilemma, or does it divide? Is it commensurate with our unmet need to shelter hundreds - not dozens - of people? Will it immediately respond to impending cold, wet weather? Is it truly "temporary" and connected to expedited development of low-cost housing?

For the last 10 months, some advocates have seized upon unfolding economic adversities to promote legalized urban camping - a plan they've pursued for the past 10 years. Their "solution" now shifts from tents to what Bee articles call "cabana-style sheds" or "sleeping cottages" that are less euphemistically described in The Bee's own Dec. 14, 2008, editorial as "shanties."

Having people living on our streets is nothing short of a preventable disaster that will only be com- pounded by lowering housing-code standards. Undoubtedly the latest homeless encampment proposal is "a step," but in what direction does it lead us?

- Robert V. Tobin, Sacramento, president and chief executive officer, Cottage Housing Inc.

Cruel, ineffective lab studies

Re "Animals still vital to medical studies" (Viewpoints, Oct. 4): Since the California Biomedical Research Association is funded by and represents people who torment and kill animals in laboratories, it is no surprise that its president champions animal experimentation, despite its inherent cruelty and demonstrated scientific failure.

In fact, drug testing on animals is a dismal failure. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 per- cent of drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human trials because they don't work or are dangerous. And of the small percentage approved, roughly half must be withdrawn or relabeled because of side effects not predicted by animal experiments. These results do not translate to humans because of differences in biology and disease development among species.

More effective research methods are being developed, and more people are recognizing that despite any hypothetical benefits, we should not endorse any enterprise that allows more than 100 million sentient animals in the United States alone to be drowned, burned, cut open, shocked, poisoned, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs or brain-damaged.

- Justin Goodman, Norfolk, Va. research associate supervisor, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals