Letters to the editor: Meghan Daum and the Amanda Knox case; voter reform and the electoral college; the Keystone XL pipeline debate

Innocents abroad

Re “There’s no place like home,” Opinion, Oct. 6

Meghan Daum unconsciously perpetuates the fear of traveling abroad that we’ve been conditioned to feel due to the incessant news reports of a few isolated incidents. In fact, I was disappointed that she did not challenge this exaggerated anxiety more directly, as the benefits of experiencing other cultures far outweigh any potential risks.

I have traveled extensively, and one of the most valuable life lessons I quickly learned was that there are wonderful people everywhere — hospitable, sophisticated, generous, brilliant people, many of whom are far more aware of the goings on in other countries than many, if not most, Americans.

We cannot fully understand ourselves culturally until we see ourselves from an outside point of view. If more Americans traveled to just one other country and spent some quality time with others there, they might realize that the U.S. is not the center of the universe.

Andy Parsons

Costa Mesa

Daum uses a broad brush to paint Americans as afraid of the rest of the world. Perhaps her opinion is indeed skewed by her being put off by the media circus surrounding Amanda Knox.

While the Department of State says that only about 37% of Americans hold a passport, I suggest it’s cost that affects most people’s travel decisions.

To use the example of what happened to Billy Hayes, the hashish smuggler depicted in “Midnight Express,” as the basis of the fear of being thrown in a foreign prison is just silly.

Daum notes this fear of foreign travel is irrational, but confessing to harboring this irrationality just makes her irrational, not a typical American.

Jay Wilson

Lawndale

I know exactly what Daum means about that fear of traveling outside this tiny island of civilization and, even worse, getting sick out there in the barbaric hinterlands. A friend of mine had a horrific experience of just this kind while visiting France a few years ago.

Ailing and frightened, he appealed to the people he was staying with for help. Sure, they said, and they called the doctor, who showed up in 20 minutes. The doctor examined him, assured him his problem was not serious, gave him a prescription and departed after charging a modest fee.

You can imagine how degraded he felt after this nightmare encounter with socialized medicine.

Catherine Cocks

Iowa City, Iowa

Directly voting for president

Re “Electoral college end-run,” Editorial, Oct. 5

Would that elected officials in my state were as enlightened as those in California, which joined the National Popular Vote initiative to create a direct vote in presidential elections.

The majority party in Pennsylvania’s Senate heard testimony on Oct. 4 for a plan to award electoral votes by congressional districts, replacing the current winner-takes-all process.

Incredibly, Sen. Charles T. McIlhinney told speakers to limit their testimony to the Senate proposal and not discuss the popular vote question.

The popular vote is certainly relevant. If we had it, there would be no need to rearrange the deck chairs for one party’s political advantage.

Bruce S. Ticker

Philadelphia

The Times is mistaken in believing that proposed changes to the Pennsylvania election law would bring that state closer to the one-person one-vote principle. Redistricting has created Republican majorities in 12 of the state’s 19 congressional districts, leaving Democratic votes concentrated in a few urban areas. The likely result is that in 2012, the Republican candidate will win most of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes, even if President Obama wins the statewide vote.

This is best described as inversely proportional representation.

Edwin McBride

Long Beach

The Times is correct in calling for electoral vote reform. Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal does little to correct this matter because it relies on the decisions of other states. Pennsylvania’s plan to distribute votes along congressional districts is not fair because all districts have either Democrat or Republican majorities.

The only true way to reform the system, if the electoral college is to remain, is for each state to award its electoral votes in the same proportion as its popular vote.

Everyone cites the 2000 election, but if Sen. John Kerry had won Ohio in 2004, he would have beaten President Bush with about 3 million fewer popular votes.

Bob Guarrera

Laguna Niguel

The case for E-Verify

Re “E-Verify’s not the answer,” Editorial, Oct. 6

The latest iteration of your dogmatic opposition to requiring employers to screen job applicants through the E-Verify program rests on a straw man.

Yes, illegal aliens are currently performing many unpleasant and difficult jobs, often at minimum wage. And, yes, legal workers may be reluctant to perform some of those same jobs at minimum wage.

If employers were denied the ability to hire illegals, however, what would happen? Consistent with free-market principles and to the benefit of unskilled legal workers, employers would have to increase wages for unattractive jobs. Employers oppose E-Verify because illegal immigrant provide a limitless supply of cheap labor.

Mark Pulliam

San Diego

The Times is off base. Opponents of E-Verify are putting the interests of illegal workers ahead of Americans.

By requiring all employers to use E-Verify — a free, easy-to-use program — we could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans.

The Times points to a 2009 study that said E-Verify fails to detect illegal workers 54% of the time. But the study provides only an estimate. The evaluation even admits that “any estimate will be very imprecise.”

Actually, E-Verify immediately confirms persons eligible to work here more than 99% of the time. With this sort of track record, it’s no wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll found that 82% of likely voters support requiring E-Verify.

Illegal immigration is a huge fiscal burden on taxpayers. Expanding E-Verify is an important step toward turning off the jobs magnet that encourages illegal immigration.

Rep. Lamar Smith

(R-Texas)

The writer chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

Energy sense

Re “Keystone: the wrong question,” Editorial, Oct. 6

The Times is correct to assume that stopping the Keystone XL pipeline will not decrease the demand for tar sands oil. The only sure way to decrease demand for carbon-based fuels is to raise the cost. But can we do so without hurting our economy?

Certainly — by putting a steadily rising fee on oil, gas and coal and giving the revenue back to the American people as direct payments.

The price signal of a carbon fee will unleash massive amounts of private investment for clean energy, perhaps allowing the government to get out of the subsidies business. Giving the money back to consumers will shield households from the economic impact of energy costs associated with the carbon fee.

Let’s stop the pipeline because of the risk it poses to natural resources. But let’s put a price on carbon to reduce demand for tar sands oil.

Mark Reynolds

Coronado, Calif.

The writer is executive director of the Citizens Climate Lobby.

Injustices

Re “Retrial in gay youth’s shooting to omit hate allegation,” Oct. 6

It’s sad that a teenager living in California has a greater chance of being tried for murder as an adult than he does of getting a job at Magic Mountain.

Wayne Wright

Valencia