Despoiling Alaska

Re “Alaska’s fork in the river,” Sept. 1

I am dismayed to read the plans of the mining companies to decimate a prime piece of America. I have flown over that area in Alaska and fished it. All the gold and riches in the world are not worth the devastation that mining on the scale proposed would cause there.

The existing natural beauty and balance of resources can benefit everyone. The mining will create some jobs and make a few people very rich, but at what cost? The scale and far-reaching effects of the mining will potentially destroy a large part of one of the few wild places left in the U.S., endanger several sustainable industries and negatively change the lives of many indigenous Americans.

John Hocking

Alta Loma

It is obvious that the environmental impact of this massive project will be considerable. What will be the additional impact of moving 12 billion tons of earth? The atmospheric pollution will be significant, as will the increased oil requirements on this country’s dependency on imported oil. There also will be the ongoing energy requirements for the mining operations. I vote no.

Stan Hunter

Banning

A new, shiny apple hangs from that tree in the garden – and this time the serpent is named “Greed.” There is no justification for ruining one of the most significant salmon runs in the world for temporary, temporal riches. What is the worth of a million years of wild sockeye salmon?

This insanity must be stopped.

Paul R. Cooley

Culver City

‘Brazen’ ploy or more democratic?

Re “Brazen GOP operatives seek to rig presidential race,” column, Sept. 3

It’s fun to watch as politicians and political pundits talk out of both sides of their mouths, still bemoaning the fact that George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 despite losing the popular vote. Many people say we should eliminate the electoral college and settle the race democratically by the majority of the popular vote.

Fast forward to this article. The Republicans are proposing that California’s electoral vote be divided according to congressional districts. Based on our recent redistricting, the proposal would almost ensure that 20 of California’s electoral votes would go to the GOP. Whereas with the winner-take-all rules currently operative, the Democrats would get all 55.

So wouldn’t the GOP proposal be more closely aligned to the popular vote here in California? Wouldn’t California’s vote result in a more democratically elected president?

Regardless of people’s feelings about the electoral college, it is buried in the Constitution and is difficult to change without a federal amendment. But it is possible for each state to award its electoral votes according to congressional districts. Maine and Nebraska have already done that. Why not California?

Gerald Sozio

Los Angeles

What is particularly galling about George Skelton’s position is that he has argued the opposite position (favoring electoral college reform) in the past. However, in prior articles, Skelton has portrayed Republicans as intransigent reactionaries for resisting a more direct form of democracy.

In this column, even though the Republicans are pursuing what Skelton has advocated in the past, the Republicans are portrayed as attempting to steal the election.

I think the electoral college model provides a bad outcome for all Californians. We need to reform the process, even if that means Republicans in California get a modicum of political representation.

Tom Miller

Calabasas

Congress’ role in ending the war

Re “War and the Constitution,” Opinion, Sept. 3

Mario M. Cuomo asks, “How did we get to this point and what, if anything, can we do now?” but completely ignores the origins of our involvement in Iraq. He rants about President Bush’s disregard of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and that this war is completely created and controlled solely by him. Cuomo forgets that Congress authorized the president to go to war with the Iraq war resolution. Rather than blast Bush for abusing his powers, remember that Congress did authorize the president to take action against Iraq.

Cuomo says there is practically nothing that Congress can do to end this conflict. If the Iraq war is that bad, Congress can use the same power it used to involve us to get us out.

Richard Shephard

Berkeley

I couldn’t agree more with Cuomo concerning the Bush administration’s disregard of the Constitution and the mess in Iraq. I also agree with his direction to Democrats on how to remove American troops from this disastrous civil war. I would add this bit of advice for the benefit of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: If you do not possess the courage to enforce Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, or the will to impeach this president, please step aside and allow someone who does to take over your position.

Roger A. Haren

San Dimas

Cuomo has it exactly right: The presidential candidates of both parties should state precisely what they would do on Jan. 20 (or 21), 2009, to end our nightmare in Iraq. Meanwhile, I can’t quite understand how so many currently seated senators and representatives can’t be more unequivocal about our withdrawal. Americans and the Iraqis are maimed and dying; I thought we cared.

Bill Pryor

Anaheim

Cuomo expressed what I’ve been thinking for a long time: We must always insist on a declaration of war when one is to be fought; and if we enter a situation on an emergency basis, it must end totally or be declared by Congress to be an approved war within a few months. It would have to be budgeted annually, reviewed and justified to elected representatives. An actual enemy would have to be named – no more vague descriptions of a “war on terror.”

Of course, an administration that lies to begin a preemptive war is difficult to detect, but it could be more easily stopped if it were being handled according to the Constitution. In fact, the commander in chief should not even be allowed to call it a war if it isn’t one.

Carol Palladini

Santa Barbara

Going green takes many forms

Re “Trying to buy a greener conscience,” Sept. 2

Attempting to assuage greenhouse-gas guilt with carbon offsets is clearly not an effective way to stop parboiling the planet. Rather than finding ways to tamp down our considerable guilt, we need practical, real-world solutions with real results.

I am lucky enough to drive a Toyota RAV4 all-electric vehicle powered by my home’s grid-connected solar array. Paying off my solar investment in gasoline dollars is pretty painless, and nothing beats filling up with “gallons of sunshine” every time I charge the car in my garage. I regret that others will not have this choice until automakers make plug-in transportation choices available to more of us.

Linda Nicholes

Anaheim

A November 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report stated that intense livestock production causes more greenhouse gas emissions than driving cars. It’s clear that increased rates of meat production and consumption are unsustainable, so the easiest way to get a “greener conscience” and help the Earth is to adopt a vegetarian diet.

Valerie Belt

Pacific Palisades

Thanks you for exposing this fraud of buying carbon offset credits. Credits do nothing. Please expose the greater fraud that global warming is caused by human activity. All of our weather and climate is driven by the sun. There is a natural 1,500 year (give or take 500) cycle of the Earth cooling and warming. The Earth is naturally warming now. Warming benefits us with more rainfall and more crops.

Chris Knox

Torrance

GOP embraces Bush policies

Re “Both races can feel the president’s reach,” Sept. 3

As noted, the fact that GOP candidates are embracing George W. Bush’s policies really makes no sense because the president’s policies are unpopular. What do you do when something doesn’t make sense? You keep looking, because there is an answer somewhere.

In this case, the answer is this: The front-running Republican candidates are signaling to Big Money that the gravy train will not stop rolling. Whether it’s the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Media or the upper-10th-of-1% folks who benefit from Bush’s tax cuts, any GOP candidate who expects to have the money to run would be very unwise to start talking about “change” right now. That is the code word for more taxes, more regulation and less gravy for the rich and powerful.

It’s not impossible that Mitt Romney, if elected, might turn into a trust-buster and a New Dealer, but he’d be crazy to signal that at this point in time.

Only Newt Gingrich, who isn’t yet a candidate, can afford to say “change” from the sidelines.

Jim Houghton

Encino

No to Chertoff

Re “Shades of politics in Chertoff’s record,” Sept. 4

This article further establishes that the shade of politics involving the Bush administration is actually a stench, and a stain on our nation.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff would be a worse selection for the office of attorney general than Alberto Gonzales. Chertoff has credible credentials in the law but chose to take extreme views to stay on board with Karl Rove and the neocons.

His potential appointment is further troubling because of the nexus of prior work with then-U.S. Atty. Rudy Giuliani, another opportunistic schemer. Surely our nation can find better persons to guide our country.

Robert R. Holmes

North Hills