Women’s rights issues in Israel; defining success in Afghanistan; Newt Gingrich’s rise in GOP polls

Battle of the sexes

Re “Israel women fear setback,” Nov. 13

Why is it that ultra-conservative religions, no matter which one, always get around to deciding that women need to be controlled?

A caption for one of the article’s photos reads, “Ultra-Orthodox leaders say segregation of the sexes in public places is needed to protect women from exploitation and men from temptation.” Conservative Muslims give the same reasons for forcing women to wear burkas; other religious groups here offer similar reasoning for insisting that women wear strange garb.

It saddens me to see Israel lose its moral leadership as the ultra conservatives exert more influence.

Vanae Ehret

Sherman Oaks

Since The Times saw fit to publish a photo showing defaced posters of women, perhaps you will also run an article on the Bibi Aishas in the world who are being physically defaced by the Taliban. Aisha’s husband cut off her nose and ears for running away to escape abuse.

You should start taking a deeper look at the horrors that are being perpetrated against women and gays in the Muslim world rather than the nonsense of defacing posters.

Dorothy Melvin

Los Angeles

As a feminist, I’m distressed to learn that the rights of Israeli women are being further abrogated by radical religionists. Wouldn’t it be splendid, however, if the mistreated women of Israel threw in their lot with the even more mistreated Palestinians?

Like female Jewish Israelis, Palestinian citizens of Israel are routinely deprived of equal rights. Women and Palestinians are part of Israel’s 99%.

Judith Remy Leder

Fullerton

The struggle for Afghanistan

Re “In Afghanistan, defining success is a struggle itself,” Nov. 13

Your narrative of “defining success” in Afghanistan is vivid but misses the crux of the problem.

Our running from this ghastly war is a blatant echo of the disasters of Korea (we lost half of that country) and Vietnam (where was lost the entire country). The running away from America’s enemies illustrates the amateurish bungling of politicians trying to run a war.

You can’t win a war worrying about the cost. Wars are won by those who apply their maximum force at the enemy’s weakest points and refuse to quit until the enemy is vanquished.

Casualties? Yes, in every war. There are more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. But no politician can be proud of deaths that do not lead to victory.

No one should be elected to public office who has not served in our armed forces.

Walter E. Murdock

Huntington Beach

The writer is a retired U.S. naval officer.

The Times reports that instead of focusing on the absence of popular support for Afghanistan’s government, or its inability to provide basic security even in heavily fortified areas, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is now suggesting that we should measure success partly by whether the average Afghan has hope of a better life for his or her children.

It is interesting that the article doesn’t give Crocker’s view on this point. The reader can only conclude that his view must be that Afghanistan has no such hope.

This isn’t surprising, considering the mass poverty, illiteracy and unemployment in that country, which a 10-year occupation has done little to reverse.

John R. Yates

Los Angeles

Another week, another rival

Re “Gingrich rising? He’s not surprised,” Nov. 15

Despite President Obama’s precarious political standing, the GOP will likely stumble once again. Although I respect Newt Gingrich’s intellectual prowess, his personality would likely render him an ineffective president.

This election is the Republicans’ to lose, but they will probably do exactly that, given the choice of candidates. That Gingrich is now the front-runner fulfills an old Chinese saying that in a pond where there are no fish, the shrimp is the king.

John T. Chiu

Newport Beach

First it’s Rick Perry taking the lead over Mitt Romney, then it’s Herman Cain passing Romney, and now it’s Gingrich. Do you get the impression that most Republicans will take anyone but the flip-flopping Romney?

Ralph S. Brax

Lancaster

Vaccination is a better way

Re “Costly drug for smallpox questioned,” Nov. 13

In a biological attack, there wouldn’t be enough time to inoculate the U.S. population with a stockpiled smallpox vaccine. And $433 million spent on preparing a post-infection treatment that cannot be tested on humans and will never be approved by the Food and Drug Administration is $433 million down the toilet.

We baby boomers were all routinely immunized against smallpox. Why not be proactive and go back to inexpensive, effective, routine vaccination?

Julia Tyson

Pasadena

Now we know what President Obama means when he talks about tax breaks for the rich: his own gift of $433 million in taxpayer money to Ronald O. Perelman, “one of the world’s richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor” who is the controlling shareholder of the vaccine maker.

Obama’s definition of “transparency” is also revealed by this no-bid contract for an unproven, unneeded vaccine.

Charles K. Sergis

Redondo Beach

Sponsorships

Re “A Republican’s eccentric race for president,” Nov. 14

You write that presidential hopeful Gary Johnson finds the campaign process “unsavory.” The article continues: “He half-jokingly suggests campaign reforms that would force candidates to wear NASCAR-style jackets covered with the logos of all of their corporate sponsors.”

Why “half-jokingly”? We voters should demand that all candidates include their sponsors’ logos in every political ad and include a “brought to you by” line in every speech.

Gerald M. Sutliff

Bakersfield

Powerful sheriff

Re “Does the sheriff get a pass?,” Postscript, Nov. 12

The public vote is basically a joke insofar as removing an incumbent from office. The voting public has to wait years to remove someone from office (in L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca’s case, four years), whereas a commission or a mayor can do it within a reasonable time.

Four years is a lot of time for someone to continue making a mess of things. No one in office should slide by like that.

George A. Weinstock

Calabasas

For the labels

Re “Cigarette graphics go too far,” Editorial, Nov. 9

We strongly disagree that U.S. District Judge Richard Leon was right to block graphic cigarette warning labels. There’s no inconsistency between requiring effective labels on dangerous products and protecting 1st Amendment rights. Government requires warning labels on thousands of products, and legal precedents provide ground rules for regulation of commercial speech. Warning labels don’t restrict speech; they provide information. A different federal judge upheld the warning labels as constitutional using this very reasoning.

The warning labels truthfully depict the consequences of smoking. In truth, the victims of the industry’s marketing manipulations are the 400,000 Americans who die each year from smoking.

Matthew Myers

Washington

The writer is president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.