The lastest attempted terrorist bombing; immigration reform; bed nets to combat malaria

How safe are we?

Re “N.Y. suspect got training in Pakistan,” May 5, and “U.S. moves to plug ‘no fly’ holes,” May 6

It’s nice that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have full confidence in homeland security, because I sure don’t.

The fact that Faisal Shahzad was allowed to board a plane gives cause for concern. He made the airline reservation on his way to the airport and paid cash for a one-way flight to the Dubai. I thought these were the “red flags” used to evaluate passengers. I guess not.

It appears that as long as there are no deaths involved, our government believes the system worked.

I couldn’t help thinking about this as I was getting on a plane and noticed an elderly woman being taken to secondary inspection to remove her nylons. We are so far out of whack it’s ridiculous. And anyone who has spent any amount of time with TSA employees knows what I am talking about.

Steve Owen

San Diego

Apparently the federal government is overwhelmed with homeland security issues.

It has enlisted airlines, domestic and foreign, to monitor one of the most important avenues available to terrorists, the ability to enter and exit the country via air traffic.

The title of this article should have read: U.S. moves to have airlines plug “no fly” holes.

Wes Correll

Laguna Beach

There is no doubt that as long as we are over there bombing and killing, they will find a way to bomb us over here.

Common sense would dictate that after all these years of war in Afghanistan, we would get that message. It’s time for our citizens to yell loud and clear: “Enough!”

Gabriella Kolias

Placentia

In the wake of the capture of the latest Pakistani terrorist, we can expect the usual wave of apologists’ rationalizations — “it’s our drones” or “we invaded Muslim lands.”

There’s never been a shortage of masochistic sanctimony among the peace-at-any-cost crowd. Perhaps it comes from a sense of guilt over the overwhelming material success of Western culture. This is not surprising in an age when “victims” are routinely elevated to noble status, regardless of the central role they usually play in their own “victimization.”

Michael Jenning

Van Nuys

Re “Let the legal system work,” Editorial, May 5

You did your readers a disservice by not printing any of President Obama’s great speech of May 4, in which he proclaimed, “We will not be intimidated.”

Some of our cringing representatives seem to attribute superpowers to the people who commit these cowardly acts.

These people are common criminals and deserve neither elevated status nor our fear.

Jack Chansler

Monrovia

‘Buy American’ makes sense

Re “ ‘Buy American’ boondoggle,” Editorial, May 1

In writing of senators’ “dim understanding of economics” and “misguided protectionism,” The Times seems to think it isn’t enough just to spread your economic philosophy — free trade — you also must insult those who can see the folly of that viewpoint.

American businesses ship vast numbers of jobs to other counties. Whirlpool, joining Levi’s and thousands of other companies who have gone before it, recently announced it will be laying off 1,100 workers in Indiana and sending those jobs to Mexico. Most people laid off will find new employment but at lower pay and with little or no benefits.

What Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his colleagues are trying to do is keep taxpayer money in the country. That way, we can benefit in two ways: by circulating the money within the country, and by keeping good-paying jobs within our borders.

Not that dim, in my view.

John Mathieu

San Pedro

What Scalia doesn’t see

Re “Scalia the wise,” Editorial, May 4

The Times agrees with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the identities of those who sign ballot initiatives should not be kept secret because the legislative process is an open one and those who participate should be willing to accept harassment and intimidation.

But both The Times and Scalia miss the point: The choices of those who vote on ballot initiatives is kept secret because it is considered good public policy to protect voters from harassment and intimidation.

So why is it any less good public policy to protect those who “vote” to put a ballot initiative on the ballot in the first place?

Alan Leow

Malibu

Immigration reform

Re “So close, and now so far,” Opinion, April 30

Ronald Brownstein considers the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill of 2006 a lost opportunity to solve the problem of illegal immigration and blames conservatives within the Republican Party for its failure.

I, like many others, opposed this bill because it provided no linkage between border security effectiveness and granting citizenship to those who have already entered this country.

Why not propose a bill that would increase border security and contain a target goal by which to reduce illegal entry?

Say an 80% reduction is agreed on. If, after two years, the Department of Homeland Security can certify that this goal has been met, then we can start granting amnesty to those who are already here.

Most of us remember how ineffective the 1986 immigration law was. We don’t intend to repeat it, which is why we opposed the McCain/Kennedy bill.

Greg Daniels

Sunland

Brownstein writes: “In a nation that is more than one-third minority, nearly 90% of McCain’s votes in 2008 came from whites. That exclusionary posture ...”

This is not to say that 90% of whites voted for McCain. In fact, whites voted 43% for Obama and 55% for McCain. Hispanics voted 66% Obama, 31% McCain. Blacks voted 95% Obama, 4% McCain.

Writers frequently use percentages to suit their own spin agendas. If only one person had voted for McCain, and that person happened to be white, then 100% of the McCain vote would have been white. Right?

Yeah, but he got 10 votes, and nine of them were white. So what? Does it mean we have nine white racists? Or could it possibly mean anything else?

Seems to me, looking at the unvarnished numbers, the exclusionary-ness came not so much from those who voted for McCain but, to a greater degree, from those who voted against him.

Gerry Gunn

Los Angeles

Don’t scrimp on bed nets

Re “The fatal hole in anti-malaria mosquito nets,” Opinion, May 2

There are fatal holes in Sonia Shah’s reasoning. Literally fatal.

A child dies every 40 seconds in Africa from malaria. That’s not a statistic; that’s the death of someone’s beloved child, with her trusting eyes or his shy smile. And a $10 mosquito net could have prevented it.

Are there people who misuse or don’t use their mosquito nets? Undoubtedly. But the primary reason families in malaria zones don’t use bed nets is because they can’t afford to buy them.

I applaud everyone who has sent or will send money to fund bed-net distribution. And when someone comes up with a malaria vaccine or better malaria treatments, I say we send money to help distribute those too.

I believe that if you have resources that can save the life of a child, you should share them.

K. Emily Hutta

Los Angeles