President Obama scolds Republicans; circumcision bans; taxes on potatoes or soda

Obama calls out Congress

Re “Obama puts pressure on Republicans,” June 30

I beg to differ with your claim that President Obama has framed the debate on the budget talks. Obama does not have a plan. If he does, could someone please give me a clear and concise recap of what it is?

Decrying corporate aircraft, oil companies and billionaires is just divisive. Besides, changing the length of depreciation for corporate aircraft would only raise pennies and not address real budget issues. Beating up on oil companies only attacks some of our strongest and most successful institutions. It makes more sense to have a comprehensive energy plan and work with these institutions to make it happen. This would include renewables.

We all want a real leader and not political speeches. Obama’s approach of calling out some group is wearing very thin.

Don Black

Rancho Palos Verdes

Obama finally stood up to those members of Congress he felt were not doing their jobs in getting our country back on track. This was a long time coming, and let’s hope that he doesn’t let up.

His Republican opponents have never shied away from pointing fingers at him while calling him out by name (“Obamacare” ) as the reason for perpetuating our country’s ills. Perhaps he should begin calling out his opponents by name. Obama’s naming names will have a bigger impact on voters. The tax loopholes, cuts in Medicare and other problems will have a face.

Conrad J. Doerr

Palm Springs

Why should Republicans negotiate with Democrats to solve the budget crisis? As long as Republicans help keep the economy in a shambles, Obama will take the blame and they can get a Republican in the White House.

The only things that could change their minds would be an electorate that sees through their scheme, or if they suddenly develop a conscientious desire to fix our problems, even if that means — gasp! — compromise.

Randal Seech

San Clemente

Battling over circumcision

Re “Ban the circumcision ban,” Editorial, June 25

I threw my newspaper down in disgust when I read the editorial condemning the San Francisco ballot initiative to outlaw male genital mutilation. I believe that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is to the penis designed by that creator. I also believe that each individual has the inherent right to choose his own religion and not to have it sliced into his flesh by his parents.

Circumcision is a painful procedure that permanently mutilates the infant. Just as slavery, foot binding and human sacrifice have seen their day, so it should be with circumcision.

No matter what you think about the procedure, no one has the right to make that decision for another man. His penis, his choice. Anything else is a crime.

Jeff Graves

Alhambra

I was 5 years old and 11 years old at the times of the removal of my tonsils and appendix, respectively, by licensed physicians because my parents believed that such procedures were in my best interest. Several years ago, my urologist informed me that he, as well as many other urologists, believed that the benefits of circumcising babies outweighed the disadvantages.

I know of the circumcision of a middle-aged man for medical reasons who was in much pain after the procedure. For these reasons, I oppose a ban on infant male circumcision.

Marc Jacobson

Los Angeles

When the subject is circumcision, Times editors retreat from their usual balanced presentation of both sides.

To say a ban “is an unwarranted intrusion on family privacy” fails to recognize that, for proponents of the ban, this is an issue of human rights. Proponents contend that the parents’ choice to take advantage of their son’s immaturity to treat him as they see fit confronts the child’s right to retain the body of his birth. Parental privilege should stop where it denies this right.

Opponents of the ban ignore this principled stand as if it didn’t exist. We have been desensitized to an invasion of body autonomy by cultural acceptance and tradition.

Al Clarke

Thousand Oaks

In praise of the potato

Re “Time for a tater tax,” Editorial, June 25

The potato has raised civilizations. French fries are as close to potatoes as cherry Kool-Aid is to cherries. Anyone who eats French fries every day and then on top of that a second helping, as the Harvard School of Public Health study shows, should expect to gain weight.

However, a medium baked potato topped with a dash of salt, fresh chopped green onions, homemade salsa and no added fat would be a delicious and healthy meal.

No one should eat French fries or potato chips or drink soda every day, but you could survive on potatoes for months and not gain a pound. It’s all in the preparation.

Vicki Fleming

Manhattan Beach

We do not need a soda tax. A better thing to do would be to just stop subsidizing corn.

High-fructose corn syrup is the main ingredient in soda besides water. The reason soda is so cheap is because it is subsidized with taxpayer money in the form of corn subsidies. If we end the subsidies, then the price would go up and hopefully fewer people would buy soda.

Brent Trafton

Long Beach

It’s not very often that an editorial makes me laugh out loud, but this one got me twice in rapid succession. Down the tuber? Coronary in a cardboard cup? Super-size that editorial writer!

Jack Shakely

Rancho Mirage

Energy costs

Re “Fee is considered for solar plants,” Business, June 28

It is fair that alternative energy plants have to pay for the costs they incur outside their property.

But unfortunately, traditional energy sources don’t have this obligation. Coal, oil, ethanol from corn and nuclear energy are heavily subsidized by not making these sources pay for societal costs, including bills for cancer, asthma, lost work, premature deaths, worn-out soil, dead zones in the ocean, the cost of maintaining wars and damages from increasing temperatures caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

So yes, maybe we should charge the alternative energy plant for its true costs to the community, but traditional energy sources should have the same obligation.

Philip Westin

Irvine

A mayor’s fence

Re “Good fence, good neighbor? L.A. OKs Getty House plan,” June 30

It seems outrageous in this time of budget cuts that affect the neediest of citizens that the city of Los Angeles would spend money on a security fence for the mayor’s residence.

I like the mayor, but I fail to see how his position makes him a vital national security interest. He is just a mayor. He doesn’t hold the secret codes to launch our missiles, he doesn’t know the true identities of our undercover operatives around the world, and he doesn’t even have the power to get the Dodgers back from the evil clutches of the McCourts.

Government seems to spend an inordinate amount of money on security details for politicians who are probably in very little danger of being targets. I think some serious cost-benefit analyses need to be done.

David Kidd

Glendale

Criminals

Re “The lure of those on the lam,” Opinion, June 25

As Tim Rutten states, there is nothing romantic about the gangster Whitey Bulger. To claim that there is, as the late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned against, defines deviancy down — namely, it makes aberrant behavior acceptable. We saw something similar in the movie “Bonnie and Clyde.”

John Haggerty

Woodland Hills