The New York City bombing; the Supreme Court’s Mojave cross ruling; U.S. relations with Israel

Take it seriously

Re “Search on for bomb suspect,” May 3

I am very disappointed with New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who referred to the Times Square bomb incident as amateurish.

If you think about it, every successful terrorist act could be described as amateurish — had those plots been foiled. It never ceases to amaze me how our leadership continues to downplay the threat of terrorism in this country.

Douglas Ross
Los Angeles

The cross and the court

Re “A ruling that crosses the line,” Editorial, April 30

Your opinion on this issue is way off the mark.

The cross was used in Jesus’ time to kill criminals and others who were perceived as threats. Ultimately, it is a symbol of sacrifice. Our military dead made the supreme sacrifice for us in war.

The cross in the Mojave National Preserve has been around for a long time. It does not have the image of Christ on it. Therefore, it is an excellent symbol that can be interpreted in many ways by those of all religious beliefs. It is not limited to Christianity in its ultimate meaning.

Congratulations to the Supreme Court for making a truly human ruling of broader perception than your editorial.

Rosemary Patterson
Los Angeles

I agree with your editorial.

According to the Bible, the crucifix was an instrument of torture and death, which in my opinion is a highly inappropriate symbol to memorialize those who gave their lives for our country.

This reminds me of comedian Lenny Bruce’s quote, “If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic schoolchildren would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.”

Surely there is a more appropriate symbol to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Leon F. Marzillier
Granada Hills

The court says: “A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect.”

May I ask by whom such a symbol is used? Certainly not by non-Christians who wish to offer “honor and respect.”

Michael Risman
Santa Monica

Taxes and California

Re “State of ‘taxiness,’ ” Opinion, April 29

This piece is one of the best I’ve read at putting California’s fiscal situation into perspective.

The Pasadena Unified School District is hoping that a parcel tax will pass this week that will raise an additional $7 million a year from property owners. William Voegeli’s article should be required reading for anybody casting a ballot in this or any election.

Gary Osheroff
Pasadena

Voegeli’s article is an excellent example of how to lie with statistics.

He makes the point that our property tax per capita are only 11% less than the rest of the country, and our taxes per capita are a bit higher, while carefully not mentioning that we are a high-income, high-property-value state, making both figures compatible with our low property tax and mid-range income tax rate.

Of course, he does not mention rates, since this would allow a real comparison that invalidates his claims.

The opinion pages are meant to present points of view, but deliberate attempts to create false “facts” have no place in them.

Ernesto Gomez
Crestline, Calif.

Although Voegeli makes some valid points in his defense of Proposition 13, he fails completely to address the basic unfairness of the law.

Is there anywhere else in the country a property owner pays an annual tax bill based on when he or she purchased the home?

People in California who owned property when Proposition 13 was passed and still own the home pay a very low rate compared to a neighbor who bought a similar house almost anytime since the early 1980s. No wonder the former like the law.

The author quotes averages that are very misleading. Older suburbs are starved for funds, while new exurbs are flush with cash.

Voegeli states that “the people” all like Proposition 13. I suggest he poll property owners who have bought since 2000. He would very likely get a strong no vote.

The law needs serious revision to eliminate the basic unfairness.

James Bailey
Banning, Calif.

Voegeli’s math regarding California teachers’ salaries is illogical and odd. He states that the average teacher’s salary is $66,986 for nine months of work, which corresponds to a job that pays $89, 312 for 12 months of work. Many teachers work only 9 1/2 months because that is the length of the school year. That $66,986 is all there is.

Some teachers may get additional jobs, but probably few make enough during summer —which is about 10 weeks—to bring their salaries up to Voegeli’s fictitious $89,312.

It certainly has never happened in my two-teacher household.

Laurie Pincus
Los Angeles

Money poorly spent

Re “Bribes keep Taliban flush with explosives,” May 1

I don’t get it.

The Times reports that it would cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” for the sole manufacturer of ammonium nitrate in Pakistan to switch to producing urea.

We’ve spent hundreds of billions on this war, and we can’t find a few hundred thousand bucks to pay this guy to change his business model?

This would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

Liz Fautsch
Encinitas

The state of the Jewish state

Re “ Obama still has room to maneuver on Israel,” May 2

Steven Rosen, a former foreign policy director for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, does not speak for “the larger American Jewish community” referenced in this article.

He inaccurately assumes that those of us who see a two-state solution as essential and ethical are not among those who consider themselves pro-Israel.

He also states that “there’s a vast group of Jews who don’t think that much about Israel and are just involved in liberal causes.”

On the contrary, we think very much about Israel, which explains the existence of vibrant organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Peace Fellowship and J Street.

This may explain the results of the poll cited in the article that found that 55% of American Jews approve of our president’s handling of U.S.-Israel relations, while only 37% disapprove.

Marjorie Loring Gauley
Newbury Park

The American Jewish community, while slow to wake up, now has realized that President Obama’s foreign policy does not bode well for the future of the Jewish state.

It may be true that current polls have shown continuing Jewish support for Obama’s policy toward Israel, with many American Jews not fully aware of its impact, but the number of Jewish Democrats who have been questioning Obama’s approach has been growing, while Jewish Republicans continue to look askance at his obvious anti-Israel and pro-Arab bias.

We are witnessing a sea change in the approval of Obama’s foreign policy as he abandons longtime democratic allies in favor of autocratic and even dictatorial regimes.

We have lost credibility overseas by the maneuvering and quixotic nature of the present administration.

Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, Md.