Financial regulation; boycott-Arizona efforts; selling violent games to children

Animals that care

Re “Chimpanzees mourn like humans do,” April 27

This Times article reminded me of Dr. Jane Goodall’s famous study of the chimps of Gombe. There was a young chimp named Flint who was especially attached to his mother, Flo. When Flo died, Flint was inconsolable. He was old enough to care for himself, but instead, he stayed with his mother’s corpse, lost interest in everything else and died shortly afterward.

Pets, too, intuitively understand the significance of another’s illness and try to provide comfort. I had a Lhasa apso who loved sitting outside all day. But whenever I was sick, he would stay by my side in bed, leaving only briefly to eat or go to the bathroom, until I was better.

What is truly remarkable is not that animals can feel complex emotions such as grief or a desire to provide comfort, but rather that we humans are so reluctant to acknowledge it.

Stephen A. Silver

San Francisco

Covering financial reform

Re “Pace quickens as Senate sets finance bill deadline,” April 23

I take exception to the headline on the third page of this article about the finance bill: “Democrats challenge GOP bailout assertions.”

The problem is that the GOP assertions about future taxpayer-funded government bailouts are demonstrably false. The whole point of the $50-billion fund to which the banks contribute is to prevent using taxpayer money for a bailout.

You report that the president and Senate leaders “reiterated complaints that some Republicans were lying about the legislation.”

You should more directly state the fact and report the falsehood. Merely reporting back-and-forth charges favors those who stand to gain from the falsehood — a specious impartiality. Objectivity and impartiality are not the same thing.

Charles Berezin

Los Angeles

Arizona has its fans

Re “Calls to boycott Arizona growing,” April 28

Each of the past 10 years, my wife and I have spent five or six months in California and Arizona as snowbirds.

Going forward, our winter sojourn to the sunny south will be spent solely in Arizona in protest of the boycott that Californians are threatening against Arizona.

Your state is more than broke, and the cost of illegals to the state is a big contributing factor. Even Mexicans living in Arizona legally are supporting this legislation; they are aware of the impact illegals have on their costs for taxes and insurance and on their overall quality of life.

Why doesn’t California get it?

I encourage other snowbirds to take similar action next winter.

Steve Dernbach

Billings, Mont.

If San Francisco is so outraged over the new Arizona law, then all the illegals in Arizona should go to San Francisco and mooch off of them.

Maybe San Francisco will go broke. It deserves it.

We welcome immigrants that come here legally.

Sharlene Cartier

Arcadia

Historically, local California governments have enjoyed a nonpartisan reputation. This respected image seems to be in jeopardy with local officials falling over themselves to get on the boycott-Arizona bandwagon.

Leave political issues to the advocacy groups. Heaven knows that the city and county of Los Angeles, among others, should be devoting their resources to closing their budget deficits.

Len Wood

Rancho Palos Verdes

The writer is a former city manager of Rancho Palos Verdes, Claremont and other municipalities.

Re “Arizona law reshaping reform push,” April 27

The word “repudiate” is defined as an act of denial, to reject truth or validity, to disown and to refuse to honor.

Because of the ever-widening polarization in American politics, John McCain has chosen to repudiate the fine work he and his late friend, Ted Kennedy, tried to accomplish in the field of immigration. How sad is that?

Robert Lunsford

Northridge

See violence, become violent?

Re “Justices to weigh in on kids, violence,” April 27, and “There shouldn’t be a law,” Opinion, April 28

I am not a prude, but I am a psychologist and social worker. I know how children easily absorb lessons from life as it is played out around them.

It is inconceivable to me that 1st Amendment-rights supporters would oppose a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. This is all that the law does. It doesn’t stop parents from buying these games for their children or for themselves.

But for such parents to think for a moment that these materials won’t adversely affect their kids is a mistake. The violence in our culture stems partly from the easy access we give children to such graphic portrayals.

I’m surprised Tim Rutten takes the side that he does.

Ralph Mitchell

Monterey Park

It is unfortunate that most of what the public hears about video-game violence comes from anecdotes and opinions provided by politicians, media commentators and industry spokespersons whose goal is self-serving disinformation.

Decades ago, scientific research proved a causal link between viewing violence and harmful social consequences. Parents have every right to be concerned about the effects of media violence. Many causes of violence are not easily manageable, but limiting children’s access to violent video games would be a small, positive step.

Roger Johnson

San Clemente

The writer is a member of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

As an advocate of free speech and a “gamer” myself, I find it irritating that people are still using the video-game scapegoat to cover for bad parenting.

The ban on selling violent video games to minors should be a moot point. Games have ratings, which tell vendors what to sell to kids and what to keep away from them. Protecting children should be the responsibility of parents, who should educate themselves on the content of any game their children own or want to own. Don’t like what’s on the TV? Turn it off. Don’t want your kids playing violent games? Don’t let them.

What the court considers violent isn’t far from what you can find on the television or the Internet. But television and the Internet aren’t today’s pariah — video games are.

Do your job, parents. Stop finding excuses for bad parenting.

James Mazur

Anaheim

Hard lives in Sudan

Re “Their glass half empty,” Column One, April 24

The tea ladies who have been forced from their homes in Darfur and are now eking out a living on the streets of Khartoum are luckier than the people who have been similarly displaced from Darfur into refugee camps in Chad and other places, who continue to die by the thousands from exposure, starvation and disease.

The reelection of indicted war criminal President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir will only exacerbate and expedite the genocide.

The international community has a moral duty to condemn the results of Sudan’s recent election and demand that all parties meet their obligations under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Until people around the world demand the arrest of Bashir and an end to his brutal regime, the genocide will continue.

Michael Kerry

San Luis Obispo