Letters to the editor

Dire and desperate

Re “Story behind slaughter of family starts emerging,” Jan. 28

The Ervin Lupoe tragedy, in which he allegedly killed his wife, five young children and himself after he and his wife were fired from their medical technician jobs at Kaiser Permanente, shows how desperate people can get when faced with dire economic consequences.

With our deeply worsening economy, it is surprising we aren’t seeing more incidents like this one.

Kenneth L. Zimmerman

Huntington Beach

No excuses for killers

Re “Story behind slaughter of family starts emerging,” Jan. 28

Stories about distressed men (always men) who kill their entire families always have a tone of sympathy or at least empathy.

It would be more accurate to refer to these men as “mass family killers” or “child and family murderers.”

The narcissistic anger and pathological arrogance that lead them to kill readily available persons is not much different from that of any other killer. They are not martyrs.

Viki Day

Anaheim

The costs of a cleaner future

Re “A fuel-efficient future,” editorial, Jan. 27

How does adding a great burden ensure the survival of Detroit’s automakers? “Spending billions to retool” and building cars that would “cost consumers more” is a plan to keep our industry in business?

I never have seen a business plan that, in tough economic times, strives to make sure costs go up. I suppose it makes perfect sense to the government, as it approves more loans to the car companies.

Richard Fisk

Granada Hills

::

Re “Obama makes move on emissions,” Jan. 26

Now that President Obama is directing the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider California’s request for a waiver to allow states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, it is important to recall the main motivation for that waiver request.

The California waiver request came about primarily because of the adamant refusal of the Bush-era EPA to take meaningful action on the issue. With new leadership in Washington, that situation should no longer exist, and the need for individual states to act should be moot.

An effective, all-encompassing national rule, in concert with similar efforts in Europe and Asia, would be far better than a patchwork of state regulations.

John Schutz

San Luis Obispo

Octuplets raise social concerns

Re “Octuplets rattle fertility experts,” Jan. 28

I am relieved to see

that even the fertility com-

munity is uneasy with such irresponsible medical decisions as to allow a woman to carry eight fetuses.

The mother will discover when she tries to breast-feed all of them that humans are not meant to have litters. There is a reason why women have only two breasts.

No woman should be allowed to receive fertility treatments unless she is willing to sign either a commitment to selective reduction, or an agreement to pay all the healthcare costs herself.

I can guarantee you that if that family had to pay the costs themselves, they would never have dreamed of attempting to carry so many fetuses.

Roberta Quiroz

Los Angeles

Re “Octuplets rattle fertility experts,” Jan. 28

::

Re “A bundled burden,” Opinion, Jan. 28

Was anyone else creeped out by William H. Woodwell Jr.’s chilling conclusion that parents whose fertility treatments yielded three or more developing fetuses should be “[encouraged] or even somehow [required] ... to engage in multifetal reduction”?

So you are in your obstetrician’s exam room and he says, “Congratulations! The fertility treatments worked a little overtime and you are pregnant with quadruplets! But you know that is over the legal limit so we are going to have to give you an injection that will kill two of them.”

What Woodwell is suggesting is consistent with the philosophy of Nazi Germany: People who are “burdens” to society should be legally terminated. His own child has cerebral palsy. Is she a burden or a miracle?

Taken to an extreme, Woodwell’s approach would give the government, even above his objections as her father, the power to decide.

Kristy McTaggart

Costa Mesa

Might be harder than it looks

Re “Toss me a plum post too, governor,” Column, Jan. 25

About 2,000 Californians serve currently on more than 300 state boards and commissions, and only six of them are former legislators.

Steve Lopez says the Gambling Control Commission, or GCC, would be his preferred position because it would not be hard for him to “find the time for twice-monthly meetings ... [and] even a full-time job, if I were feeling particularly motivated.”

Contrary to what Lopez believes, were he appointed to the GCC, in particular, he would first have to quit his job at The Times. He would also have to withdraw from any other paid endeavor.

As a scrupulous commissioner, he would have to prepare for each bimonthly meeting by reviewing hundreds of pages. From time to time, he would sit on a subcommittee charged with investigating the gaming industry or recommending some regulations for the GCC’s consideration.

While juggling those duties, he would have to find time to meet with members of the general public and stakeholders in the gaming industry.

Furthermore, he would be expected to stay abreast of trends in gaming.

It should also be noted that as a commissioner, Lopez would regulate an industry that is about the same size as Nevada’s, but with a support staff that is about one-quarter the size.

Every full-time paid appointee has similar time demands and weighty responsibilities.

John G. Cruz

Sacramento

The writer is appointments secretary for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

::

Seldom has a columnist picked apart the enigmatic logic in the governor’s rationale for giving away state jobs as pointedly and hilariously as Lopez has.

Relying on the premise that Lopez correctly quoted Kathay Feng of California Common Cause that “the people appointed to these positions do not reflect any particular expertise in the commission’s purpose,” I am submitting my name for our governor’s consideration alongside Lopez’s because (forgive me, Steve, for using your line) I too am perfect for the job -- whatever it is.

Thanks for a great piece, Steve, and don’t go to Sacramento!

Richard A. Finn

Newport Beach

Painful preview for the poor

Re “Proposed cuts foretell state’s plight,” Jan. 26

The Times reported Monday that lawmakers have endorsed $6 billion in cuts “that provide a painful preview of what is likely to be in store for Californians.”

Fortunately for me, that is not at all what I found in the article. Despite the fact that I have written my state representatives multiple times suggesting that my wife and I could and should be taxed more than we are, the only cuts mentioned in the article involved transportation, schools, the elderly, the blind, the disabled and centers that help treat disabilities in babies and toddlers.

So, except for a few more potholes, I’m safe. And I’m learning to like it.

Thank goodness for all those no-new-taxes Republicans. I admit that I wrote those foolish letters, but I’ve seen the light. After all, I really didn’t want to skip the concerts and the restaurants.

Thank goodness for the powerless. Thank goodness for the young, the old, the blind and the disabled, for they are the ones to whom the “painful preview” is really addressed.

James Mamer

Modjeska Canyon