California’s bullet train debate; a Brit’s crusade against the word “awesome”; how to spend the peace dividend

Lure of the rails

Re “Keep the bullet train on track,” Editorial, Jan. 7

Should California continue its high-speed rail project? Yes. But should we get locked into the current plan by the California High-Speed Rail Authority? No.

Most people favor, in principle, building a bullet train system, even many who object to the cost and poor design. So the real question is why we’re locked into such an unrealistic plan. It is apparent the current plan to start in the Central Valley is a political compromise, not a doable business plan able to attract private investment.

The state needs to consider a more sensible, less costly design to get this project moving.

Lester H. Lee

Saratoga, Calif.

Your editorial appears to be a subtle attempt to kill this project.

You refer to unfavorable studies on the project but offer no rebuttal. You highlight the costly and useless “train to nowhere.” You note the lack of funding and question if the added gas tax needed would receive voter approval. You refer to two grossly expensive and delayed projects — L.A.’s subway and Boston’s Big Dig — as worthy examples.

The Egyptian pyramids are offered as an example of success — piles of rocks in a desert that required years of effort by thousands of people but provide no useful function, not even shade.

I object to this foolish project and appreciate your unintended support for my viewpoint.

Robert Gourlay

Porter Ranch

Most everyone agrees that mass transit is a good idea, but they don’t understand the difficulties involved in building and maintaining such systems.

Southern California once had the most extensive urban rail system in the world, but by the 1950s much of it had been abandoned. Why? Citizens preferred riding in their own automobiles, and government couldn’t justify continuing to operate the rail system.

Today the opposite is happening. The cost to operate our highway system is almost unsustainable. We need to build high-speed rail.

If we abandon the project, 50 years from now, when everywhere else in the modern world people are riding on high-speed trains, Californians will look back and say how lacking in foresight we were to give it up.

Wait, isn’t that what we say about what happened 50 years ago?

John Trask

Thousand Oaks

In a word, he’s against it

Re “He lacks awe for ‘awesome,’ ” Jan. 6

I got a kick out of John Tottenham’s crusade against the word “awesome,” as I have long felt that it’s an adjective reserved for describing things such as the Canadian Rockies, the New Zealand fjords and other wonders of nature. In recent years, however, it seems to have been downgraded to the point of being nothing more than a synonym for “good.”

As for his desire to tackle the more recent “it’s all good,” I would much prefer his next target to be a phrase that has been around since “Get Smart” hit the airwaves: the overused (and always insincere sounding) “sorry about that.”

Nancy Joujon-Roche

Culver City

The British-born Tottenham, an L.A. poet, is a “minor celebrity” in Echo Park? Seriously?

Actually, the most irritating word he should address is that Brit one: “brilliant.” Now that’s a truly bland affirmation.

Tottenham’s linguistic cleansing movement would be awesome if it printed T-shirts and stickers with a slash across “brilliant.” Doing so might deter the Brits from using that word repetitiously, displaying their lack of verbal ingenuity.

Sylvia Mascarenhas

San Dimas

Brilliant. Really, brilliant. Excellent article on how we Californians overuse the word “awesome” and other phrases to the point that they are rendered meaningless. And cheers for having a Brit from across the pond press the point with a proposal to ban such cliches.

Spot-on reporting. Well done. Carry on.

Theresa Hoiles

Playa del Rey

Fighting the wars of the future

Re “Overspending the peace dividend,” Opinion, Jan. 8

Max Boot argues against President Obama’s proposed moderate cut in the military budget. Boot’s article is misguided in the sense that his argument is based on past wars, not what is at stake presently or in the future.

We are losing our position in the world in the economic sphere, not militarily. And our huge defense budget is one of the major causes of our deficit. We are not winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite enormous sacrifices.

We would have been much better off had we relied on new technology (drones, for example) and learned how to counter stateless terrorist insurgencies rather than engaging in conventional wars.

So let us not waste more resources preparing for past wars; instead, let us boost our technology in energy and international competitiveness. These are the battlefields of our future wars.

Nake M. Kamrany

Pacific Palisades

Predictably, Boot decries Obama’s proposals for reducing our defense budget. He writes: “Those who advocate such cuts claim that, after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will never have to fight another major ground war again — and certainly not two at the same time. Haven’t we heard that before?”

Hopefully we will not “have to,” but if the Max Boots have their way in the future, I am afraid that once again we may “choose to.” And if we do, let them be the first to put their boots on the ground.

Ed Grubbs

Spring Valley, Calif.

Elephant talk

Re “San Diego Zoo euthanizes two elephants,” Jan. 7

Cha Cha and Cookie may have been ailing but they were not elderly, not by elephant standards. Elephants mature and age the same as humans. No one would consider calling a 43- or 56-year-old elderly. Some wild elephants live well into their 70s.

Premature deaths in captivity are not only tragic, they are also reminders of why we should not keep such complicated animals in captivity. The physical, mental and emotional needs of elephants far exceed our ability to humanely keep them in zoos.

Many enlightened zoos have made the decision not to keep or exhibit elephants for this reason. After all the elephant deaths and controversies through the years, why can’t the San Diego Zoo follow suit?

Lisa A. Landres

Venice

The writer is a former San Diego Zoo elephant keeper.

Navajo woes

Re “Tribe confronts HIV,” Column One, Jan. 5

I read with concern and sadness of the state of the Navajo nation. It is an atrocity that these people live in such despair.

As humans, I believe we “heal” from the inside out. From this perspective, I wonder how the United States can neglect its own. The first order of business in this country is helping those many populations that would benefit from proper education and awareness.

Let us start spending our time and energy healing this country from within.

Gail Tyler

Santa Barbara

Feed the tax man

Re “14% of taxes still unpaid for 2006,” Business, Jan. 7

In 2006 (the last year for which data are available), the Internal Revenue Service failed to collect $385 billion in taxes, which is larger than the budget deficit of $248 billion that year. Instead of arguing about increasing taxes versus reducing spending, why doesn’t the government collect the taxes it is owed.?

We could spend

$1 billion on better tax enforcement and come out $384 billion ahead. Maybe this would also create jobs.

Bill Schmitendorf

Irvine