‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’; L.A. County’s foster care system; the firing of Juan Williams

There’s much to tell

Re “ ‘Don’t ask’ order is put on hold,” Oct. 21, and “Why fight it?” Opinion, Oct. 21

I prefer that “don’t ask, don’t tell” would go away immediately, but I think President Obama has it right.

Judicial activism is sometimes necessary to protect our civil rights. The judge who initially placed an injunction on the policy did the right thing by waking people up to the gross injustice the Pentagon does to gay recruits and the massive damage “don’t ask” does to our military readiness. On the other hand, the appellate judge did the right thing by slowing down the process of eliminating the policy.

It’s best that Congress passes a thoroughly debated law that welcomes people of all sexual orientations as long as their behavior and actions display the utmost respect for the people they fight with, the people they fight against and the people they fight to protect.

Matt Horns

Los Angeles

It is time for LGBT and other progressive elements of the Democratic Party to press for a change to the party’s ticket in 2012. The president’s request for a stay of the injunction against “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a both a travesty of justice and an insult to gay and lesbian soldiers, as well as the wider LGBT community.

While the “It Gets Better” campaign sends positive messages to LGBT youth, the message from the president is, “It gets better as long as you don’t want to serve your country.”

Erwin Chemerinsky’s Op-Ed piece rightly points out that there is no constitutional requirement for the Justice Department to appeal the injunction ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Obama should have taken the hint from California’s Republican governor and Democratic attorney general that sometimes not appealing a ruling is not a partisan political ploy but the right thing to do. Yet again the president lost a historic moment to stand on the side of history.

Lance N.R. Robinson

Los Angeles

Protecting the children of L.A.

Re “L.A. County child abuse deaths rising,” Oct. 19

After 30-plus years as the director of private agencies that tried to work with the Department of Children and Family Services, it’s clear to me that some things are a lot better than when we worked on creating a new department in the early 1980s. But five core issues have not changed. No director can be held responsible for trying to manage the unmanageable. Firing Director Patricia Ploehn will not fix these problems:

1. The system is too big to manage.

2. It’s too political. We have no checks and balances on the Board of Supervisors.

3. There are no enforceable best-practice standards, thus little accountability.

4. Many great people work at the DCFS, but few of the bad ones get fired.

5. Insufficient funding, always.

When these issues are addressed, then we can hold the directors of smaller, manageable departments accountable. Until then, more kids will die while we wrangle and blame.

Judy Nelson

Redondo Beach

As a veteran social worker who spent 16 years “on the line,” I see social workers give 150% commitment to the children and families we serve. I would ask those who criticize social workers to trade places with us for one day. We do not have a crystal ball and cannot know when each and every fatality will occur. We have to work together.

In 2008, The Times reported on a child whose mother tortured him repeatedly. The DCFS got an anonymous tip, located the family, detained the child and saved his life. We learned that several people in the community knew about the abuse but chose to ignore it.

The entire community is responsible for protecting children, not just the DCFS. If you see any child abuse or neglect, please intervene. Social workers cannot succeed alone.

Joan Becket

Compton

Speaking of a commentator

Re “ NPR commentator is fired,” Oct. 21

Juan Williams said nothing negative about Muslims, only that he was nervous flying with Muslims wearing traditional garb. I would suggest that most Americans share this fear.

There is a great irony in this situation, and that is that NPR has had many commentators criticizing the military for its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, in which service men and women were expected to lie about their sexual orientation to avoid being discharged. Williams was truthful about his fears and was fired for his candor.

Larry Shapiro

Rancho Mirage

Williams’ stated anxiety in his airline travels comes not from “Islamic dress” but from fear-mongering that our society has been subjected to since we took up war as a response to the 9/11 attacks.

First off, there is no such thing as “Islamic dress.” Muslims from different parts of the world dress very differently according to their regional and national cultures. One only has to travel to know this.

Second, the perpetrators of 9/11 dressed in jeans and T-shirts, drank alcohol and went to nude bars. Get anxious over that!

Want to be free of anxiety? Stop watching Fox News, stop listening to right-wing talk shows and don’t let the “tea party” rob you of your wits.

Omar Huda

Granada Hills

Re “NPR’s overreaction,” Editorial, Oct. 22

I agree that sanctions arising out of political correctness, however well intentioned, can eliminate the chances for debate on difficult and important subjects. I wonder if Williams’ case is such a good example, though.

Doesn’t his immediately signing a $2-million contract with Fox News the day after he lost his contract with NPR shed a different light on the topic? It sounds as if, for NPR, this was the last straw, and for Fox and Williams it was too good an opportunity to pass up.

His signing with Fox and then putting out a statement saying NPR doesn’t have an interest in diversity is a bit incongruous. So even beyond the clumsiness of the original remarks, I think we can have confidence that the necessary public debates will find spokespeople who are at least as effective as Williams.

Stuart Meiklejohn

Ojai

Nothing light about buds

Re “The feds say no way,” Editorial, Oct. 20

The Times appears to be unfamiliar with the strong legal and historical precedents to Proposition 19. While national prohibition was the law of the land (1920-33), New York, Massachusetts, California and 10 other states repealed or modified their alcohol prohibition laws, thus ceding the burden and expense of enforcement to federal authorities.

Californians are entirely within their rights to repeal their marijuana prohibition laws, and the feds are entirely within their rights to enforce theirs. That’s the nature of federalism.

Richard M. Evans

Northampton, Mass.

The writer is a member of the Proposition 19 legal subcommittee.

As someone who has consumed his fair share of alcohol and marijuana, there is a massive distinction that has been generally overlooked in the debate over Proposition 19.

Many people consume alcohol on a daily basis without reaching a level considered to be intoxication, while marijuana’s recreational use is always for the sole purpose of becoming “stoned.”

In many cases, alcohol is part of our daily dining milieu, and in these cases it is quite arguable that it is not being used as a drug. This is why Prohibition was so idiotic. But marijuana, in its nonmedicinal uses, is always used as a drug for the purposes of intoxication. There are different flavors and blends, but no one’s doing it “just for the taste of it.”

Nathan Johnston

Los Angeles

Analyze them!

Re “N.Y. to release teacher ratings,” Oct. 21

How about a “value-added” analysis of representatives and senators at both the state and national levels?

Ed Schlossman

Thousand Oaks