Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad; saving rainwater; budget ignorance

---

FOR THE RECORD:
Letters: A Feb. 6 letter on the difficulty many people have distinguishing the difference between millions and billions said that 56.5 million is less than .003% of 20 billion. It is less than 0.3% of 20 billion. —

---

Super Bowl spot

Re “CBS should’ve punted,” Opinion, Jan. 30

In their advertisement, Tim Tebow and his mother reportedly tell a heartwarming story of courage and religious conviction that conveys a resounding celebration of life. It is a testament to the venal aspirations of abortion proponents that this is depicted as “rancorous political division.”

The Tebows are committed members of their church and role models who give to their community. What is remarkable to me is not their doctors’ unlawful advice to abort, but rather the myopic views of small-minded journalists who dogmatically support the abortion lobby and fail to appreciate the beauty of the Tebows’ message.

Clyde Harkins
Irvine

Because all available spots apparently have not been sold for the Super Bowl, CBS’ decision to accept one from a religious organization that is “advertising” anti-abortion views likely was one determined by economics.

Apart from the issue of taste and civility, there is also the issue that because this nearly $3-million message is probably being paid for with tax-exempt funds, American taxpayers may be partially footing the bill.

It’s bad enough to have to listen to sanctimonious moral preaching during a football game. We shouldn’t have to pay for the privilege as well.

Mark Rosenblatt
Westwood

I am a football fan and was looking forward to watching the Super Bowl, including many of its clever and entertaining commercials. The likely inclusion by CBS, however, of a Focus on the Family message regarding abortion is ill-considered and insulting to those of us who simply want to be entertained and to escape the politico-religious antagonisms of modern life, if only for a few hours.

As a result, I will TiVo the game and begin watching it with a one-hour delay. This will allow me to fast-forward through all of the commercials. Though I will indeed miss the sometimes clever product pitches, I will not have to be subjected to the religious views of Focus on the Family and Tim Tebow’s family. This is not the place or time for those views to be forced on me, even inadvertently.

Perhaps Focus on the Family and the Tebow family should not be worrying about my political and religious views on Super Bowl Sunday, but should be focusing on their own fragile families.

Alfred Sils
Woodland Hills

It’s funny how we don’t complain about provocative and dirty commercials like those presented by businesses such as Carl’s Jr., but when it involves the appreciation of life, people get all riled up.

Where have our morals gone? In today’s world, everything is OK.

I support this commercial because people are destroying babies that could grow up to be the next Kobe Bryant or the first scientist to find the cure for cancer. If Tebow’s mother had had an abortion, maybe Florida would not have won two BCS Championships. People who choose abortion take away that chance.

Daniel A. Gonzalez
Los Angeles

Saving water

Re “L.A. aims to capture rainwater,” Feb. 1

What about Los Angeles setting a good example of saving rainwater by turning the L.A. River back to its natural state?

Nature knew what it was doing when it made riverbeds of gravel and rocks so water could drain down into aquifers, where it could be filtered naturally and then reused by the inhabitants of the land.

I’d like to see this done before this new ordinance puts new construction under fire if it doesn’t capture 100% of rainwater runoff. We all are accountable for wasting water -- not just the developers of new buildings.

Has Los Angeles installed “rainwater storage tanks, permeable pavement, infiltration swales or curb bump-outs” everywhere it can to “manage the water where it falls”? What encouragement has the city given to the use of gray water?

This new law makes the city sound like the pot calling the kettle black.

Sydney Phipps
La Puente

Californians ‘Don’t know’

Re “Public ignorance bites California in the wallet,” Jan. 31

The Times notes that the Public Policy Institute of California’s recent state budget poll found that “only 6% of Californians could identify both the biggest revenue source and the biggest beneficiary of state money.”

A tragic element is that the poll offered multiple-choice options for answering these two questions about the state budget.

Even if everyone blindly guessed, 6% of respondents could probably answer both questions correctly.

Reading the full poll at the institute’s website, I discovered that there were, in fact, 6% of Californians who knew what they were talking about -- the 6% who answered “Don’t know.”

Perhaps we all deserve a new option on our voter registration forms: clueless.

Donovan Steutel
Pasadena

This article should have been on the front page, and perhaps The Times should regularly publish more information regarding the sources of revenue for our government and how that money is spent.

Currently, voters mostly see intentionally misleading information from political advertising, which is tailored to achieve a desired result.

It was very interesting to see how my own biased beliefs about the budgets compared with those of voters from the rest of the state.

I was closer to reality, but still a long way off.

Craig Arnold
Long Beach

Regarding the public’s ignorance on California’s income and expenditures:

If the budget revenue and expenditure numbers included in this article were presented in the following simplified manner, it would go a long way toward helping the general public achieve a basic understanding of the state’s budget situation.

Tell the public that income taxes essentially pay for K-12 education and higher education (55% of revenues paying for 41% and 13% of expenditures.)

Tell the public that sales taxes essentially pay for health and human services (31% of revenues paying for 30% of expenditures.)

Tell the public that corporation taxes essentially pay for prisons (10% of revenues paying for 10% of expenditures.)

That covers 96% of the state’s revenues and 94% of the state’s expenditures.

Though the budget is obviously much more complex than this, such a breakdown would offer a feel for the orders of magnitude involved.

There would be few excuses for people remaining ignorant on this matter.

Donald Bentley
La Puente

Millions and billions

Re “But who’s counting?,” Opinion, Jan. 31

Hurray for Doug Smith for exposing fellow journalists who are million-billion challenged.

His comments should be extended to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his staff for forcing the sale of state property as a means of relieving the state’s budget shortfall.

For instance, Schwarzenegger has insisted on selling the popular Orange County Fairgrounds, for which $56.5 million was bid recently by a private real estate firm. A hefty sum -- until one realizes the state shortfall is about $20 billion.

The proceeds from the sale of the fairgrounds would represent less than 0.003% of the state’s shortfall. It would require the sale of 350 fairgrounds to balance the state’s budget. Innumeracy is not limited to newsrooms.

David Carlberg
Huntington Beach

I’ve always thought the best way to demonstrate the monumental difference between a million and a billion is to do it in the context of time. One million seconds elapse in about 11.5 days. One billion seconds take a little less than 32 years.

To spend a million dollars, it would take less than two weeks at the rate of a dollar a second; to spend a billion dollars at the same rate, more than three decades.

This is an analogy that even the most mathematically challenged can comprehend.

Ira Wieder
Santa Monica

Plan B for Okinawa

Re “Battleground Okinawa,” Editorial, Jan. 30

I have a Plan B for America in Okinawa. Leave.

We forget how betrayed the Okinawans felt in 1972 when they were “returned” to Japan instead of being granted their long-sought independence.

Since 1972, the Okinawan independence movement developed a new long-term strategy to remove Japan from ruling the islands. Step one is to remove the U.S.; step two, to remove Japan.

Our troubles with Okinawa may soon be ending. Japan’s troubles with Okinawa are just beginning.

Stephen McCabe
La Jolla