Rescuing the rich

Viewing the Malibu fires gave rise to an old complaint of mine. Why should taxpayers, like myself, pay for rescuing the rich who opt to live in homes in the path of inevitable natural disasters? Doesn't it occur to government that when nature does its job on my roof or my paint, no one comes to my rescue and pays for a new roof or a new paint job.

Why in the world should my taxes pay the millions in fire equipment and manpower that it takes to rescue or salvage the homes of the rich who chose to live in hazardous areas?

It doesn't make sense to me. If, indeed, the rich are permitted to build and reside in the luxurious mountain areas, they should pay the price, not me. Homeowners in hazardous areas should be required to carry enough insurance and be responsible for the costs of equipment and manpower that it takes to come to their assistance. Like driving in California, it is a privilege, not a right, to live in luxury to destroy the natural habitat of wildlife for the delight of a few. Those who choose to do so should pay the price, not me.

It applies to those of the wealthy who have robbed the rest of us of the pleasure of nature's beaches, too. The wealthy take the beaches away from the rest of us, then rely on our taxes to save their homes from high tides, el niños and tsunamis. If the privileged few are allowed to construct homes in hazardous areas, they should be responsible for the consequences. They should not only be insured to cover any and all costs that result from natural disasters, they should not be allowed to build in these exclusive areas until they can assure that we taxpayers do not have to pay for their rescue.

Miguel Espinosa Jr. Oxnard

Get moving

Re: your Oct. 21 article, "The meth rush":

Ever look at photos from the '50s, '40s, '30s and wonder why guys and girls seemed to be so much more attractive and classy back then? Noticed there are no slobs or morbidly fat people? For one thing, back in the '30s, '40s and '50s, our country was not experiencing a meth epidemic. Likely, their biggest social problems back then were tobacco and alcohol abuse.

Another thing — people were not physically lazy back then. Back in the '40s, while a vast majority of the men went off to war, the women took jobs making airplanes.

However, even as late as the '70s, when I was a kid, obesity was rare. In fact, in my class photo of 1975-1976, we had 45 kids, yet only one in the whole class was overweight!

Why? For one thing, we had BMX and StingRay bikes and Big Wheels to ride all day. Video games were not available in the homes. In fact, if you wanted to play a video game, you had to drive to the local pizza place and pay 25 cents!

Also, a big factor was our parents. Our moms signed us all up for swimming lessons in the summers and our dads played baseball with us in the fall and winter. Around the mid to late '70s and into the early '80s both disco, roller-skating and the whole fitness/running craze started. Back when this all began, I was only between 7 and 9 and had no understanding of the whole cocaine epidemic that followed the disco dance trend.

It would take till the '90s for the personal computer to be in every school and home. At this time, two of the greatest epidemics in our country began to take seed — meth and obesity. Well, here we are in 2007 and these two seeds have grown like weeds. For the problem of obesity, Ventura offers many great walking and bike trails and great outdoor weather, to boot.

But as for the meth problem, for those already affected, it's too late in most cases and the damage cannot be undone. The best hope now is prevention to those not yet exposed to it.

Diane Wallis, Ventura

Look down, not up

I know we are encouraged to look up, be optimistic, think positive. Well, looking up is fraught with dangers, especially when you are walking through a parking lot with those concrete stops in front of each parking space.

Saturday, I fell in a parking lot, tripping over one of those cement curb stoppers as I looked up and outward at the spectacular sky. I went splat on the cement, cushioned by my right elbow. We had an iced drink in the car and I rubbed ice on my bleeding elbow all the way home. My knee was not too happy either.

My spiritual nature also took a nose dive as I muttered a few expletives at the cement curb. Why can't they just paint yellow lines instead?

This is not the first time I tripped over one of these hazards. The last time was in the church parking lot. One minute I was waving at a friend feeling joyful and the next I was on the ground.

My point here is that church attendance can be harmful to your health and so is looking up. Trust me. Keep your eyes on the ground, check all around you and ignore the fantastic clouds. You'll be miserable and safe.

Meanwhile, I plan to check with city planners to find out who is responsible for curb stoppers or whatever the heck they are called. Hopefully, it is someone running for office so I can vote against them. Isn't that what elections are for anyway?

Ann Shields, Ventura

Imaginative smooch

From "Here to Eternity," Deborah Kerr will be clasped in the arms of Burt Lancaster. Even the pounding surf couldn't cool the ardor between Kerr and Lancaster in their steamy kiss. Fifty-five years has only steeped the heat of that famous embrace; it still ranks as one of Hollywood's most passionate screen kisses and now receives top billing in her obituary.

Interesting is that the only exposed part of Kerr's body is the top of her head. It is Lancaster's finely honed body we see in the shot and he's wearing a swimsuit.

The woman who exuded sex on the screen with Burt Lancaster, Yul Brynner and Cary Grant amazingly kept her clothes on. Kerr made an audience imagine her naked by acting. Her onscreen presence with a lover put a brrrrr in theaters before they were air-conditioned.

Kerr's death is a great loss, but it is also cause to recall a time when sensuality oozed out from the screen because of talent. So good was she that even the hair on Kerr's head could act with more explicitness than is seen in all of the mindless, graphic nudity in cinema today.

Mary Alice Altorfer, New Braunfels, Texas

(The writer is a former resident of Carpinteria. — Editor)

Tell a supervisor

Please call your county supervisors and tell them you support the duty of this county to repair public residential sidewalks.

Also tell him/her to void the board's illegal December ordinance passing full responsibility from the county to the homeowner for injuries from pedestrians who get hurt on municipality-owned and controlled sidewalks. Do you want to be sued for county negligence regarding its own public property?

This is a safety issue that can't be ignored. Show me you care about your neighbor by getting involved.

Barry Gabrielson, Newbury Park

Ball is in Larsen's court

Re: Richard Larsen's Oct. 9 essay, "From polarized to hating" and Richard Guthrie's Oct. 15 letter, "Crimes are crimes, period":

Obviously, Guthrie does not agree with the logistics of crimes as discussed by Mr. Larsen. I am of the opinion that it is Mr. Larsen's inherent right to express his views on crimes and criminals. He has not passed any ruling, and neither is he the competent authority to do so. However, I totally endorse the views of Mr. Guthrie to the effect that "Crimes are crimes, period."

I hope Mr. Larsen will consider responding to Guthrie's detailed observations.

Tahir Siddiqui,

Thousand Oaks

Elitist politicians

Re: your Oct. 19 editorial, "Ride the rails into the future":

In a realistic analysis of why traffic was light on Interstate 5 on Oct. 15, California Highway Patrol Officer John Lutz said, "Everyone who did not plan to go to work Monday went back today."

Metrolink, along with all the other Southern California transit agencies, has done a poor job of providing alternatives for commuters, despite billions of dollars in taxpayer funding pouring in annually. It's another example of elitist politicians running public transportation services that serve themselves rather than the passengers.

To achieve this editorial's utopian view of public transit, it needs to be more appealing than using a personal vehicle. High and rising prices, lengthier commutes, poor service and a complete lack of accountability to the only people who matter — the transit users — are not going to get us there.

Instead of praising Metrolink, The Star should be calling it on the carpet for why it has only been able to attract 42,000 daily riders, despite 15 years, billions of dollars in taxpayer money and a population of nearly 10 million people in its area.

Richard Michael, Bellflower

Driving the problem

Re: your Oct. 19 editorial, "Ride the rails into the future":

The editorial was absolutely correct. If Southern California is ever going to find its way out of perpetual gridlock, it's going to be by getting more people out of their cars, not by continually finding more ways to encourage driving.

On the East Coast, its somewhat older infrastructure has fallen into a state of disrepair while Department of Transportation officials tried to build their way out of congestion. Now, these governments are spending more and more money on maintenance with funds needed, and originally dedicated to, upgrading transit and local roads.

Hopefully, our elected officials will remember the lesson of Oct. 15 next time they're tempted to take funds dedicated to expanding transit and using them to balance the general fund. If not, we'll find ourselves in the same position as our friends to the east — unable even to maintain the transit system that we have as congestion and commuting times continue to rise.

Damien Newton, Los Angeles

(The writer is the author of the blog "Street Heat," which can be found at streetheatla.blogspot.com. — Editor)

Meth and despair

Re: your Oct. 21 article, "The meth rush":

To all the parents who have suffered through their teenagers becoming addicted to meth, I would like to say, please, don't listen to anyone who tells you that you are a bad parent! Teenagers, whether rich or poor, sometimes make bad choices. It happened to my middle-class family years ago.

Look for a support system to get through this crisis, whether it be family or friends or a local group who understands what you're dealing with. It's not your fault! This horrible drug can strike any family.

Even though I lost a good 10 years of my son's life to meth, I can happily report that he is doing very well now at age 28. I have my son back and that is so important to me and his siblings. I hope this offers you some hope because when your child is involved with meth, there are times when you feel utter despair. I know.

Jan Willis, Simi Valley

Showing true colors

Once again, Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, has proved that he lacks compassion when he voted against SCHIP, the federal money given to the states to fund programs for healthy families.

SCHIP's purpose is to pay for preventative and illness-related medical expenses incurred by children of working, but not well-off, parents. It is not welfare, as other programs (Medi-Cal in our state) cover those at poverty level.

Initially, this year's SCHIP bill was nonpolitical, designed and supported by leaders of both parties. Then President Bush decided to veto it and, as usual, our Rep. Gallegly marched in lock step, voting to uphold the veto.

It has been proved in numerous studies that money spent to care for children is not only the humane, moral thing to do, but it is cost-effective as it helps to prevent catastrophic medical expenses, such as those incurred in emergency care.

Fiscally irresponsible, inhumane and immoral? I think so, and I hope voters remember this next year as they choose a new member of Congress to represent our district.

Penny Strowger,

Westlake Village

Political film, indeed

Re: Don Glynn's Oct. 16 letter, "Gore movie ruled political' ":

Those who read Mr. Glynn's letter may have formed the opinion that the British High Court banned the showing of Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," in high schools. In fact, Judge Michael Burton ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr. Gore's "one-sided" views.

Despite his finding of significant errors, Barton said many of the claims made in the film were supported by the weight of scientific evidence, and he identified four main hypotheses, each of which is very well supported "by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]." I am quoting the Guardian newspaper, www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange.

It has since emerged that the school governor, Stewart Dimmock, who challenged the screening of Gore's climate-change documentary in secondary schools, was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming. The Observer newspaper has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies (education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2190996,00.html).

Truly a political film.

Neil Symonds,

Newbury Park