America’s tight job market; the security of Social Security; Israel’s nuclear ‘veil’

What job market?

Re “U.S. job market shrinks again,” Aug. 7

Forget about new jobs in the U.S. Self-employment will be the norm for most new college graduates. High school graduates will have to specialize in trades. Most of these Americans won’t hire any “employees” either. They too will be able to procure services from contractors and make sales through commission-only salesmen.

Large corporations will continue to export research and development, manufacturing and business operations to countries with cheap labor. They have no interest in providing new jobs here. Why hire employees? They can get photos, graphics, software and music from royalty-free “libraries.” They can acquire product ideas and solutions to difficult technical problems from scientists and engineers responding to the “crowd-

sourcing” ads posted on the Internet.

Sorry, but that is our future.

Tom Novinson

Ventura

I have a wonderful son who recently graduated from an L.A.-area college. He now spends frustrating days sending out resumes and applying for jobs on the Internet because most employers no longer accept phone calls or in-person requests from those seeking work. Most of his

e-mails go unanswered and unacknowledged.

He has been among the final candidates in interviews he has landed, and each time was told he did not get the job because he did not serve an internship. He did not do so because during his college years he was serving in the Air Force Reserve in Iraq, being mortared and shot at by rocket-propelled grenades while caring for and evacuating wounded and sick soldiers.

I am extremely proud of that “internship,” and saddened that it appears to have little demonstrable value to the people he was serving.

Jim Stava

Salt Lake City

Social Security and what ails it

Re “Myth of Social Security shortfall,” Aug. 8

Michael Hiltzik’s analysis is right on and should be mandatory reading for all of our congressmen and senators. Thank you for running it.

Max Lupul

Northridge

My interest in Hiltzik’s article turned to amazement as I read it.

Hiltzik contends that there is no Social Security shortfall because payments by nonretirees and interest make up enough money to cover current payments. At the end of his column, however, he admits that the Social Security trust fund will be drawn down to zero by 2037 (according to current projections).

That doesn’t sound like a myth of a shortfall to me.

Hiltzik also makes the ludicrous statement that “money from the taxpayers at the lower end of the income scale has been spent to help out those at the higher end.”

The money from the trust fund has been loaned to the government to cover programs, most of which benefit all citizens. I would argue that this was a poor use of the funds and makes Social Security more of a Ponzi scheme than anything else.

Hiltzik concludes that nothing needs to be done now. Get your head out of the sand, Mr. Hiltzik! If something isn’t done now, by the time some action is taken, it will be too late.

The time to have taken action was in the 1990s, but politicians were too scared to touch this sacred cow.

Keith Hafen

Long Beach

Photographs in a courtroom

Re “Judicial myopia in L.A.,” Opinion, Aug. 7

I am a criminal defense lawyer working in Los Angeles County. I found Superior Court Judge Hilleri G. Merritt’s reversal of her decision regarding the photographs of defendant Alberd Tersargyan the proper one to protect his due process rights.

One of the hardest decisions a person or a judge makes is changing one’s mind. Merritt’s mature self-reversal shows a desire to uphold the Constitution, something all judges should strive for. Her decision considered the big picture, ensuring that the defense and the prosecution receive a fair trial.

It is Tim Rutten and The Times who are being myopic, by focusing on the desire to print a specific prejudicial photograph.

Jason Rubel

Pasadena

The Times has a right to publish certain pictures. The defendant has a right to a fair trial. Pictures of the defendant have already been published, so there is no real need to publish these particular pictures.

Compromise: The judge agrees that The Times has a right to publish the pictures. The Times agrees not to publish them.

Charlie Morgan

San Clemente

Israel’s nukes are different

Re “Israel’s nuclear charade,” Opinion, Aug. 9

Anybody with the least familiarity with the United Nations’ negative disposition toward Israel and its appalling failures to curb nuclear weapons growth elsewhere — where, unlike in Israel, there is a real, immediate danger of using such weapons aggressively — couldn’t possibly urge Israel, given its extreme vulnerability to its neighbors and hostile big powers, to be more transparent.

The most startling fact is that despite the continued pressure during all of its existence, Israel has not used its weapons.

Perhaps the day after Iran, North Korea and others have honored their agreements and certifiably disposed of their weapons, Israel might reconsider.

Brad Scabbard

Woodland Hills

Micah Zenko’s call for Israel to lift its nuclear veil would be a disservice to the Jewish state at this time. It would serve only to turn the spotlight away from Iran, diminish American efforts to delegitimize the mullahs’ nuclear weapons venture and give Arab countries an excuse to proliferate.

Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles

The writer served in the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the George H.W. Bush administration.

Terrorism suspects’ rights

Re “The rights of terror suspects,” Editorial, Aug. 10

When the alleged Times Square bomber was arrested after attempting to set off a car bomb in crowded New York streets, investigators had limited time to determine whether he was acting alone or if another attack was imminent.

They also had to decide whether their primary goal was to gather intelligence or to build a criminal case against the suspect.

The Miranda rule required that the suspect be advised of his right to remain silent, and federal law also required that he be brought before a magistrate within six hours of his arrest.

Either action could have ended the flow of

vital intelligence. Agents were able to persuade

the suspect to waive his rights and cooperate, but that will not always be the case.

I introduced the Questioning of Terrorism Suspects Act to allow investigators more time to question terrorism suspects before they are advised of their Miranda rights or brought to court.

The Times recognized “that a prompt appearance before a magistrate might discourage some suspects from continuing to answer questions about an immediate threat to public safety,” but argued that the six-hour limit under existing law “isn’t absolute” and “we prefer to rely on judicial discretion.”

Investigators shouldn’t have to guess whether a court will throw out a confession, nor should they be forced to choose between protecting the public and seeking justice.

My legislation gives them greater legal certainty and allows them to do both.

Rep. Adam Schiff

(D- Burbank)