The execution of Troy Davis; taxing the wealthy; the Palestinian statehood debate at the U.N.

A deadly mistake

Re “Georgia puts convict to death despite protest,” Sept. 22

The reason I am against the death penalty is perfectly exemplified by Troy Davis’ execution Wednesday night.

In case no one noticed, people are fallible. We make mistakes; we fail to take all circumstances into account; we are led by preconceptions; we have some personal quirks, such as the desire to “close the case.” We also are loathe to consider that all the facts are not necessarily at our disposal.

If a convicted person is allowed to live, he or she can eventually be freed if the facts warrant doing so. Once the execution is over, no one cares to investigate further to determine whether the execution was proper.

Hank Kocol

Roseville, Calif.

The state committed murder. What must the world think of us? I am ashamed of my own country. God have mercy on all our souls.

Maybe Davis’ execution is what’s needed to end capital punishment. I believe we are a decent society, but we took a step back this week.

Dennis Grossman

Woodland Hills

When wealth and taxes collide

Re “Tax the wealth,” Opinion, Sept. 20

Taxing wealth wouldn’t impact only the rich. Bruce Ackerman’s and Anne Alstott’s proposed 2% tax on wealth at the $7.2 million starting point would be $144,000. Many farmers and others who own real estate have a net worth of more than $7 million, but they do not have the income to pay the tax.

My family has a net worth that would require the “wealth” tax, but our gross income is far less than what we would have to pay: 192% of our income. The only way we could pay such a tax would be to borrow money or sell assets to pay the tax.

What a ridiculous situation in which to place the vast majority of “wealthy” people.

Rennie Gabriel

Encino

The writer is the author of the book, “Wealth on Any Income.”

This proposal — that we tax the aggregate wealth of the richest Americans — is by far the sanest, most workable suggestion I have seen in the public forum.

America is the land of opportunity and I respect, with religious fervor, the right to rise to the limits of one’s abilities. But when, as Ackerman and Alstott point out, 1% of the population owns 35% of the national wealth, it is time to rethink the equation.

The proposed tax would affect only one half of 1% of our population, and these are the people who have profited the most and suffered the least as a result of the current recession. This is the right thing to do.

Bart Braverman

Los Angeles

A troubled path to statehood

Re “Face-off at the U.N.,” Editorial, Sept. 20

You can’t negotiate for a pie while one of the parties is eating the pie. That mental picture shows why the Palestinians have to go to the United Nations.

The only way to achieve real statehood is for the Palestinians and the Israelis to negotiate a settlement. But if things continue as they are, Israel will have gobbled up all there is to negotiate. When the state of Israel was created, we didn’t support it so it could take over the entire area. We supported it because we wanted to support the Jewish people in their efforts for a democratic homeland.

Having a vote in favor of Palestinian statehood at the U.N. would be an incremental change, yet it might help level the playing field. Hopefully, this change would cause both parties to choose a new path to peace.

John Hyde

Pasadena

The Times doesn’t mention how this all came about: that in 1947 the U.N. divided the territory between a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. Israel accepted.

What followed were conflicts started by the Arab states unwilling to have any Israel, in any form, as small as it would have been, as a neighbor. The Arabs instigated the 1948 war, the 1956 war, the 1967 war and the 1973 war. Where is the historical context on The Times’ editorial page?

Daniel L. Dintzer

Palm Springs

Re “The coming U.N. debacle,” Opinion, Sept. 20

Yossi Klein Halevi claims that the proposed U.N. vote to recognize Palestine will “almost certainly increase anti-Israel violence in the region,” yet offers no cogent argument why this would occur.

He raises the specter of missiles being fired from the West Bank, forcing Israel “to send its soldiers back into the West Bank,” ignoring the fact that Israeli soldiers are already in the West Bank imposing a brutal occupation.

He writes, “Statehood is a responsibility to be earned,” ignoring the principle — enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere — of a people’s inalienable right to self-determination. If statehood were a privilege and not a right, it’s one that Israel would have long ago forfeited by its 44-year-old occupation and colonization of the West Bank.

David Saffan

Santa Barbara

Wars aren’t the only costly items

Re “A costly war machine,” Opinion, Sept. 18

Linda Bilmes and George Stiglitz paint a distressing picture of the shady financing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They condemn overspending and waste, borrowing to cover costs, unrealistic budget projections and the ripple effects of wasteful spending and deficits.

This sorry list is the same chicanery that conservatives have decried for decades of increasing federal spending. Reprehensible as these practices are, the war costs that the authors condemn are a fraction of the total.

One has to ask why two economists condemn spending on these wars while overlooking Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and welfare programs, which present a much more enduring problem.

Andrew K. Gabriel

South Pasadena

Such is the cost of empire. From the Roman Empire to our cousins, the British, it is the carrying of huge debt that begins the decline of world powers.

The home-front is deprived of needed infrastructure improvements while the military-industrial complex runs amok abroad, wasting resources and creating supposed new threats to the homeland. That justifies huge levels of “defense” expenditures to confront an enemy we helped to create. It’s a vicious cycle.

Bob Teigan

Santa Susana, Calif.

For all parents

Re “Power to the parents,” Opinion, Sept. 19

Of course parents should have a voice in how their children are educated. But the group Parent Revolution seems to have missed one of education’s most basic precepts: Play fair.

If parents have concerns about their children’s schools and want to pull the “trigger,” their complaints should be aired at public meetings, where opposing views can be heard. It is not unreasonable to verify the authenticity of signatures on a parent petition to close a school.

At McKinley Elementary in Compton, there were many complaints about lack of transparency. Instead of labeling that city’s school board as “recalcitrant,” perhaps The Times should look at the school board as attempting to protect the rights of parents not under the orchestration of Parent Revolution.

Cheryl Ortega

Los Angeles