Duped by water bond

It's really upsetting to learn you've been the victim of a scam, but it's even worse to find out the con artists reside in the state Legislature. We, the taxpayers, have been defrauded!

Last year, the voters were told the state's levees were in imminent danger of collapse if they weren't repaired and that we needed to approve Proposition 84, the water bond, to provide $5.3 billion for the repairs.

Now we are being told the fine print in the proposition contains funding for projects that have nothing to do with our water supply. Two projects that are being proposed in legislation by Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, would provide funds for the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and the Huntington Botanical Gardens. The senator justified this funding by saying, "Culture is important." Is this what you had in mind when you voted for the water bond?

But there's more. Legislators in the San Joaquin Valley want some of this bond money to build a large aquarium in Fresno. Other projects being considered include a Lake Tahoe water trail to provide access to camping accommodations and a biking-hiking trail around the Sacramento Delta.

Major contributors to putting the proposition on the ballot were the Big Sur Land Trust, which expects to receive $10 million to $15 million for land purchase.

Adding insult, the lobbyist who wrote Proposition 84 said promoters were not being devious by including spending for museums and aquariums, adding, "Those projects made the proposition more attractive to the voters."

We've been duped! I doubt I'll ever vote for another bond measure for fear of the small print.

Jere Robings, Thousand Oaks

Breast-feeding response

Re: LeeAnne Clark's May 25 letter, "Breast-feeding not for all":

Ms. Clark took issue with my May 22 letter, in which I stated that babies are born to breast-feed and most babies have no need for a bottle. Ms. Clark referred to me as "sanctimonious" and a "breast-feeding extremist," lumping me in with a couple of women with whom she'd had an unfortunate encounter.

As an international board-certified lactation consultant, I am well aware that there are babies who must be fed with a bottle. That is why I clearly stated, "Most babies have no need to drink anything from a bottle."

Nowhere in my letter did I "eschew logic," as Ms. Clark states. I pointed out a couple of facts about breast-feeding and suggested that if moms are going to be concerned about the safety of bottles, they might first consider the safety of the formula they're putting into those bottles.

I must take huge exception to Ms. Clark's portrayal of adoptive nursing as a "whacked-out idea," "an unnatural and excruciating procedure" and "a very difficult, painful and usually fruitless process."

Most adoptive mothers are able to produce at least a little milk, and those who have breast-fed adopted babies say that breast-feeding has numerous benefits in addition to nutrition.

Breast-feeding should not be painful; if it is, a breast-feeding professional should be consulted immediately to help correct the problem.

Dianne E. Oliver, Simi Valley

Insensitive to veterans

Re: your May 27 article, "A bitter Memorial Day":

I am truly outraged and offended by The Star's lack of sensitivity and concern for all veterans and for those now on active duty. What is the purpose of such an article? We have so much to be thankful for when we live in this great nation. Instead, I am slapped in the face the day before we are to be honoring those who died serving America.

I am a Vietnam veteran and flew 157 missions during that era. I have been a subscriber of The Star for more than 10 years. The Star's positions have clearly taken a much greater negative tone toward our country over the past two years. The good news is relegated to the back pages or just not delivered at all.

Peter Collier wrote in the May 26-27 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in his article "American Honor," as follows: "We impoverish ourselves by shunting these heroes and their experiences to the back pages of our national consciousness. Their stories are not just boys' adventure tales writ large. They are a kind of moral instruction. They remind of something we've heard many times before but is worth repeating on a wartime Memorial Day when we're uncertain about what we celebrate. We're the land of the free for one reason only: We're the home of the brave."

My suggestion to The Star is that it take to heart what is stated in Mr. Collier's article and apply it to The Star's journalism. As Americans and as citizens of Ventura County, we will all be much better served.

Ken Curry, Newbury Park

Politicians out of touch

On Memorial Day, I couldn't help but remember the millions of Americans who fought for our freedom since this country was founded. At the same time, I thought of the politicians I voted for in the last four elections who gave us the unresponsive government we have in Washington.

Many soldiers gave their lives for this country, yet those rogues in Washington, who have offices around here in Ventura, are passing out free citizenship to people who have no right to be here. It doesn't make sense to me. This problem should have been resolved eight years ago.

After World War II, a popular phrase summed up what we should keep in mind: "Remember Pearl Harbor." Does anyone know what that means today?

An election is coming up next year, and we, the people, will be having some pretty frank discussions on talk radio, the Internet and the cable news. I don't think the old politicians will get away with giving away America any more.

Ray Holm, Westlake Village

Certainties about LNG

Re: Thomas Elias' May 25 commentary, "Is LNG needed? No one yet knows for certain":

Elias doesn't want liquefied natural gas terminals. He's a NIMBY. I can understand that. If he had the intellectual honesty to say so, I could respect that. But, no, he insists on trying to build a case against it using data and logic.

First, no one ever knows anything in advance "for certain," but several things are "known" about LNG. The U.S. Energy Information Administration is forecasting that LNG will play a critical role in meeting our intermediate-term national needs for natural gas. The California Energy Commission forecasts that LNG will play a key role in meeting California's gas needs. Numerous companies are ready to invest billions of dollars to meet the need for LNG they see developing.

Second, the best way to have lower natural gas prices in California is to have too much. If we want to lower prices, we should court LNG companies, supply them with very high gas demand forecasts and ease restrictions on building terminals.

Third, California can have a serious natural gas shortage even if demand does not grow. All it takes is a drop in available supply. Given that this future supply is expected to be increasingly from LNG imported into the Gulf Coast, California residents had better hope their NIMBY forces are weaker than ours.

The one thing I agree with is that it appears necessary we forge a shared understanding of the need for LNG.

We should undertake this study as rapidly as possible. If we wait too long, we will have the "certainty" that Elias seeks, but it will be the certainty of higher natural gas prices, higher electricity prices and companies moving out of California to find states with lower energy costs.

Jef Kurfess, Westlake Village

National tragedy

I was shocked to learn that the U.S. incarcerates 25 percent of the world's prisoners and that California will soon spend more on prisons than on universities. This is a national tragedy.

Of course, those who break the law should suffer consequences, but something is desperately wrong here.

There are no easy, one-size-fits-all solutions; we must have collaboration with subsequent action involving the justice and education systems, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, etc.

Do we move to for-profit prisons, more house arrests, shorter sentences, better mental-health and counseling services? Proactive is always better than reactive, but we seem to be a reactive nation. Surely, we can do better than this. We have to.

Debra Ryono, Moorpark

Biased imagination

The Star's May 20 article, "Pay gap," repeated much of the misinformation provided by the women's advocacy group, the American Association of University Women. Even the name of this group mimics the true, major group of university personnel, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

The AAUW claims that women earn 20 percent less doing the same full-time work as men. The AAUW arrives at that conclusion by comparing workers across gender, ethnic, skill and age groups. This is an unfair comparison.

People who are experienced and skilled in sales, medicine, administration and other jobs are likely to earn more than people who are less-skilled.

Therefore, it is likely that 35-year-old white males selling computers will earn more than 19- year-old black females doing the same job of selling computers. The older males generally have more experience with computers and will have accumulated more yearly salary increases.

This also applies to recent college graduates. Males are more likely to have skills in computers, science and business than females. It would be wonderful if more girls could be encouraged to develop these skills in junior high school, like the boys.

The alleged pay gap of 20 percent between men and women is very likely to be the product of a biased imagination, rather than fact.

Kirkland Gable, Thousand Oaks