On Texans’ passion for the domino game ‘42’; Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative; and Santa Monica College’s two-tier pricing plan

In love with ‘42’

Re “A Texas domino effect,” Column One, March 20

How enjoyable to see your front-page story. I am a Los Angeles native who met and married a West Texan in 1945 during World War II, and through him and his family, I learned to play “42.” Every other year we went to Big Spring, Texas, to visit his family — and our social life there consisted of spending hours playing the game. I still have the box of dominoes marked “Texas 42” that my father-in-law gave us 65 years ago; the box is held together with masking tape.

Barbara Hardesty

Los Angeles

Thank you for writing the article about that grand game.

As I was growing up in San Antonio, my dad and his buddies — and I too — played it many, many times. I loved it. It’s fast and fun and straight-forward, as games go.

I have whimpered for years for someone(s) to play it with me, but nobody had heard of it and so no luck. Now, my wife and maybe my father-in-law will play with me.

Howard Purgason

Redondo Beach

We live in Wisconsin; your article was forwarded by our son in Los Angeles who remembers playing “42” with his grandparents. I have fond memories of hours and hours playing “42” with my father-in-law and mother-in-law, Texans who taught us the game and were fanatics. I miss them, and I miss the game.

Your article was so much fun to read.

Greg Wyder

Shorewood, Wis.

So, you want budget reality?

Re “Brown the realist,” Editorial, March 16

I agree with your editorial that the changes Gov. Jerry Brown made to his tax proposition will make it more popular with voters.

A smaller increase in the sales tax and larger increases in the income tax on the wealthy will get more votes because people always prefer taxes that somebody else pays.

But most people probably don’t understand how this causes wide swings in the state’s revenue, in step with the economic cycle. The fix for this problem is to have a relatively hard cap on state spending, together with a reserve fund to cover expenses when revenue is down.

Unfortunately, this is not popular with politicians, who would rather spend the additional money on popular projects than save it to cover future debts.

Jim Mentzer

Los Angeles

Does the Times really not see the irony in the governor of our state negotiating proposed income tax rates with a teachers union?

How in the world does a teachers union have a place at the table to determine the financial fate of all in this state? Is it a primary business or economic driver in moving California forward in a positive way? Does it represent a majority of the residents’ interests? Does it have anything resembling an objective view of what would actually be good overall for the state?

The headline should really be: “Finally, proof! California finances run by unions.” And then discuss how — in the matter of a tax increase for the entire state — the only party at the table with the governor is one representing a very small segment of our populace. And then demand an explanation of why the union should have a voice in this.

Steven Johnson

Redondo Beach

Your editorial was on the mark. Though I agree that Brown is trying his best to find solutions to the structural deficit that California faces, you could have added two other factors to help people understand his difficulties: Proposition 13 and Grover Norquist.

Proposition 13 did away with majority rule for budgetary items, allowing a minority in state government more power than they would have otherwise. Over time, it has also shifted the property tax burden increasingly onto residential properties and away from commercial one.

With his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” Norquist has persuaded most Republicans to oppose any increase in taxes, so it is no surprise to see Republicans here opposed to any proposal that would raise taxes.

It is a wonder that California government can function at all today.

Gary Peters

Paso Robles

Paying extra makes sense

Re “Santa Monica’s two-tier trap,” March 16

In response to your editorial, I believe your readers need to know how difficult it is for community college students and faculty alike in this period of devastating cuts in funding and course offerings.

This semester, I had to turn away 22 students trying to add my Middle East history class, and about the same number trying to enroll in the world history classes, and I still ended up with students sitting on the floor (expecting the numbers to drop by the second week — they didn’t). I’ve had students tearfully plead to be added because they needed courses to graduate. It has been heartbreaking to turn them away.

I understand the arguments against offering classes at higher fees, but I believe students could benefit from having options in order to complete their education.

Amanda Roraback

Santa Monica

Opponents of the plan to offer additional classes at a slightly higher cost are ignoring the much-larger personal and social opportunity costs of not being able to get that class or classes.

Without them, you may not be able to transfer and may lose a semester or maybe a year out of your life waiting to move on with your college plans — and maybe lose your way entirely in that year and never move on at all. What’s the cost of that?

As a mass communication professor at Santa Monica College, I’ll tell you how you can find out: Offer the classes and see how quickly they fill up.

People know what things are worth, and paying a few hundred dollars more to save a year of your life adds up to a very good deal — for our students and for our society.

Martin Goldstein

Culver City

Forgoing privacy for science

Re “Geneticist is subject of his own experiment,” March 17

A scientist’s goal should not be to earn a profit but to feed his or her curiosity while benefiting society.

Michael Snyder, who heads the genetics department at Stanford, has done a noble deed in sacrificing his own privacy to move society one step closer toward the concept of “personalized medicine.”

His results may not have been the miracle conclusion that scientists have been looking for, but they indeed represent a move toward a future with a more convenient, safer way to check one’s own health.

Charles Liu

Chino Hills

Water wise

Re “Water’s costly trip to your tap,” Column, March 18

As a rural homeowner, I am dependent on my private water well — my personal MWD, so to speak. City folks often say to me: “You’re lucky; you get your water for free.” Yup, the water is free, but getting it out of the ground, storing it, pressurizing it and paying for and maintaining the systems that do this is very expensive.

My well and water delivery system cost thousands to install and may require $1,000 yearly for maintenance. This pales in comparison to the task of the MWD and all the large water purveyors.

If those getting “public water” are upset about the price, they might consider what it would cost to be on their own private well. What the Metropolitan Water District is supplying looks like a bargain to me.

Judy Reinsma

Santa Clarita

The good doctor

Re “Peter Goodwin, 1928-2012: He helped craft Death With Dignity Act,” Obituary, March 19

Thank you, Dr. Peter Goodwin, for crafting a model for other states and the federal government to follow that respects the terminally ill who recognize the inevitability of their ailment.

Watching a loved one in constant pain, whose quality of life has vanished, is not a pleasant prospect. Legal sanction to allow people to end their pain needs to happen.

Florence Gillman

Camarillo

Unspoken

Re “Life terms for children are debated,” March 21

I can almost understand the difficulty some have with sentencing a teenager to life for committing murder.

As the father of a murdered daughter, I want to add that a very important opinion on this subject will never be heard — the dead person’s opinion.

Alex Fernandez

Lakewood