Are charters public?
Re “Charters facing tougher scrutiny by L.A. Unified,” Oct. 24
Public schools belong to the taxpaying public. The campus across the street from me belongs to the residents of the community.
Although I no longer have children at the school, I am still welcome to participate in its programs. If I’m not happy with the school, I can attend board meetings and voice my complaints. I can vote for the board member of my choice and advocate for the defeat of another.
If this school becomes a charter, I will still pay my share of the taxes to support it but no longer have a voice in its governance. It would become a perfect example of taxation without representation.
If citizens want charter schools, they should have them, but these schools should be strictly accountable to the people who pay for them. Anyone who wants a school with total autonomy needs to raise his or her own money, because those schools are called private schools.
Linda Mele Johnson Long Beach
Last week, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted to shut down several charter schools for reasons that, according to an Oct. 18 Times article, “have nothing to do with academics and may not be made public.”
Teachers unions have school boards in their pockets, and the boards march to the tune of union bosses. Our children are poorer for it.
John Jaeger
Irvine
In defense of ‘protest votes’ Re “What protest votes do,” Opinion, Oct. 23
Many people voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump are simply voting against his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Now Henry Weinstein, feeling bad about his 1968 write-in vote, is using similar logic to guilt third-party voters toward Clinton.
Yes, Trump is terrible. But Clinton, with her Senate vote to invade Iraq and her subsequent dissembling about it, failed this most deadly leadership test. Accordingly, I feel that Green Party candidate Jill Stein, unlike Clinton, will not generate more coffins for our soldiers.
If Trump wins, Weinstein should turn his scorn on those who voted for Trump, not the Stein voters. Your vote does not belong to anyone. You do your duty and choose the most qualified candidate on the ballot, no write-in required.
Perhaps Weinstein would prefer a moratorium on third parties. I say we need them now more than ever.
Tim Clark
Los Angeles
Weinstein’s piece is a welcome reminder of how voting for third-party candidates can produce regrettable consequences.
As a UCLA graduate student in the 1980s, I and many of my friends voted for Ralph Nader, not so much because we agreed with his utopian politics, but mostly because knowing that he didn’t stand a chance to win, we thought that at least we could contribute to the 5% necessary to ensure his eligibility for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund’s grant in the next electoral cycle.
It wasn’t until 2000 that I came to a full understanding of the so-called votesplitting effect that probably brought the victory of George W. Bush over Vice President Al Gore, which was the most undesirable outcome for Nader’s supporters.
With so much at stake in this election, voting for a third-party nominee is irresponsible. Berta Graciano-Buchman
Beverly Hills
I was traveling in Europe, the U.S. and Canada for much of 2000 and did not bother to send in an absentee ballot. I did not think it would really matter.
Most Americans did not know much about George W. Bush (myself included). The world knows a lot about him now.
I spent 16 months in Iraq with the Army. I never found any weapons of mass destruction. To this day (as we retake Mosul, 13 years after the invasion), I wonder how my single vote could have affected the world we live in today.
John Kirkland
Oceanside
Now batting: Tom Hayden Re “Liberal activist, author,” obituary, Oct. 24
Tom Hayden was also a real baseball guy. For 10 years, he was the starting first baseman for my team.
On his 70th birthday, we met at Clover Park in Santa Monica, and I pitched him 70 fastballs to hit. Then he fielded 70 grounders, and we played catch for 70 throws. He played five more seasons after that.
Hayden grew up a Tigers fan, but he wore Dodger blue after moving to Los Angeles in the 1970s. As his body was giving out this last week, he wanted to fight to stay alive so he could witness three things: to see the Dodgers in the World Series again (but the night before he died, we watched his beloved team get eliminated by the Cubs), the black community politically mobilized and unified and Hillary Clinton win the election.
The last time I saw him alive, Hayden could no longer speak, but we gave each other the crossedfingers sign. Rest in peace, brother.
Larry George
Santa Monica
Mentioning Hayden usually brought on two very different reactions. To liberals, he was a hero for many of their causes. To conservatives, he was an anti-American agitator and troublemaker.
According to The Times’ obituary, Hayden had some regrets, including unintentionally demonizing Vietnam veterans. Whatever one’s opinion of the man, he is now past the point of listening to criticism.
It will be up to historians to debate whether his impact was a positive one for our society or a negative one.
As with most public figures, the truth will probably be found somewhere in the middle.
Charles Reilly
Manhattan Beach
Tax soda for better health Re “Clean water vs. sugary drinks,” editorial, Oct. 21
It’s a shame The Times reports only some of the data from the recently published American Journal of Public Health article entitled, “Impact of the Berkeley Excise Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption.”
The Times correctly notes that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages did substantially drop in Berkeley after the passage of the excise tax. After that, however, The Times promulgates the Big Soda myth that people will drive to neighboring communities to avoid paying the tax, while in fact, the article showed that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption did not significantly change in the neighboring comparison cities.
The Times also speculates that the decreased consumption of sugarsweetened beverages might lead to increase consumption of other sweets, while neglecting to note that the article found that water consumption increased after the passage of the excise tax. Reporting the complete data will lead the reader to conclude that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages is an effective way to reduce their consumption and lead to improved health.
Theodore C. Friedman, MD
Los Angeles
$5 for a survey and a good cause Re “Feds offer $5 bribes to take survey,” column, Oct. 21
There has been a lot of research on incentives over the years; it is clear that they improve response rates to surveys, that nothing works as well as cash for this purpose, and that incentives often pay for themselves by reducing the number of attempts interviewers have to make to get people to respond.
One of the reasons all this research on incentives has been done is that fewer and fewer people are willing to take part in surveys. As a result, survey researchers around the world have turned to incentives as one of the most effective ways to stem this unfavorable tide. Nonresponse threatens to bias survey estimates.
The Consumer Expenditure Survey, the subject of the Gemini research, is one of the most important surveys done in the U.S. because the data feed into the calculation of the Consumer Price Index, on which many, many cost-of-living adjustments are based. So it is crucial that the survey is done right.
We should applaud the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ efforts to maintain the survey at the highest possible level of quality, even if that means giving respondents some compensation for their time. It is hard to complete the Consumer Expenditure Survey questions; what’s wrong with giving the respondents a token of gratitude for their time? Roger Tourangeau
Rockville, Md. Jessica Utts
Irvine Tourangeau is president of the American Assn. for Public Opinion Research.
Utts is president of the American Statistical Assn.