LATIMES.COM/OPINION A
OPINION
LETTERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Stein loves Warren, a
Harvard law professor,
senator and high-profile
member of the intellectual
elite, which is made up of
people that he says “think
they are better than you.
People like me.”
No, they only know more
facts than the “non-elite.”
They may know a Monet
from a Mondrian and the
names of the Karamazov
brothers, but that does not
make them better than the
guy who parks their car.
Stein likes Warren be-
cause she has a plan for
everything. How many of
her plans have been suc-
cessfully tested outside the
academic world? The Sovi-
ets had decades of plans
designed by experts.
Knowing facts does not
make one wise or good.
David Goodwin
Pasadena::Stein makes a compel-
ling case regarding elitism
and the 2016 election, but I
believe the case against
political elitism is just a
well-honed propaganda
tool.
Hillary Clinton, who won
the popular vote in 2016, did
not come from a wealthy
family yet built a stunning
resume from hard work.
Warren attended a public
law school. We know the rest
of the story.President Trump has
made a career out of being
the rich spoiled guy. If hav-
ing the audacity to bleed
through a billion dollars in
failed business ventures
isn’t elitist, I don’t know
what is.
Trump doesn’t represent
corporate elitists; he is the
corporate elite.
Bethia
Sheean-Wallace
Fullerton::As I read Stein’s very
funny piece, I reflected on
the obstacles I face in my
aspirations to be an elite like
him.
I graduated from college,but from a mid-tier school
(Virginia Tech), and not in
an elite major such as phi-
losophy or history, but with
a utilitarian degree in civil
engineering. I did earn a
graduate degree, but only a
master’s, not a doctorate. I
enjoy doing the L.A. Times’
Sudoku, but I don’t create
them myself as any self-
respecting elite would do.
Most damning of all, I like
beer.
I shall remain a wannabe
elite. As I stumble through
my non-elite life, I can at
least take comfort in know-
ing the elite Warren has a
plan for me that I wouldn’t
understand.
Bruce Bates
Laguna BeachImpeachment as
political theater
Re “Trump’s ‘due process’
dodge,’ Opinion, Oct. 28In sizing up President
Trump’s options for dealing
with impeachment, Gene
Healy of the Cato Institute
aptly notes that impeach-
ment targets do not enjoy
the same constitutional
rights as defendants in
criminal trials.
On the other hand, as
Healy notes, no definitive
burden of proof applies at
any stage of the impeach-
ment process, including the
Senate trial. Thus, each
senator decides what level
of proof is needed to convict.
Democratic senators
might well require proof
beyond a reasonable doubt,
as in criminal trials. GOP
senators might insist on
proof beyond any doubt
whatsoever.
With partisan-motivated
levels of proof allowed, the
impeachment process
amounts to political theater.
So, impeachment propo-
nents must hope that the
evidence presented in pub-
lic proceedings will prove so
overwhelming as to convict
Trump in the court of public
opinion. This is possible,
but not likely.
David Schaffer
Santa Monica::Re “The House GOP gets its
vote,” editorial, Oct. 30Your editorial notes that
the resolution “would give
Republicans on the House
Intelligence and Judiciary
Committees the power to
issue subpoenas, with the
consent of the relevant
committee’s chairman or a
majority of its members.”
Since the chairs of all
House committees are held
by Democrats, that’s a
power without any punch
for the Republicans.
Of course, the chairman
of the House Judiciary
Committee, Rep. Jerold
Nadler of New York, is a
Democrat. So much for
addressing the issue of full
participation by the presi-
dent and his counsel.
Harvey Pearson
Los Feliz::Trump and the Republi-
cans are not satisfied with
getting what they have
demanded of House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Each
time the Democrats offer
something, the Republicans
will demand more in their
attempt to sabotage the
impeachment process.
Emma Willsey
Huntington BeachGetty fire was
no ‘act of God’
Re “DWP power lines linked
to Getty fire,” Oct. 30While Los Angeles Mayor
Eric Garcetti can attribute
the Getty fire, sparked by a
branch blown across a high-
way into a power line, to an
“act of God,” the fact is that
the city’s Department of
Water and Power faces
liability for all damages
resulting from the fire.
That’s because Cali-
fornia courts apply inverse
condemnation to all util-
ities, including public util-
ities, which has been fine
with California’s leaders
and courts as long as the
liability fell on the share-
holders of the investor-
owned utilities.
What’s different now?
The city of Los Angeles faces
the very real possibility of
serving as a financial back-
stop if the DWP can’t cover
the costs of the Getty fire.
California’s practice of
holding utilities strictly
liable for wildfires, regard-
less of fault, is broken. Fire
victims need help, but
bankrupting utilities isn’t
the answer. The Legislature
must fix inverse condemna-
tion or risk the solvency of
California’s utilities and the
communities and custom-
ers they serve.
Margaret Peloso
Chadds Ford, Pa.
The writer is an attorney
specializing in environmen-
tal law and climate change.Organ donation
Re “The vital work of trans-
plant recovery,” letter, Oct.
27The chief executive of
OneLegacy did his nonprof-
it no favors by taking such a
defensive tone in his letter.
The L.A. Times’ point-
by-point rebuttal made it
clear that there are real
problems to be addressed
no matter how noble One-
Legacy’s purpose. Under
the weight of this evidence, I
would have come away with
a more positive attitude
toward OneLegacy had its
CEO indicated a strong in-
tention to confront these
issues and improve its serv-
ice.
Instead, my gut tells me
something is rotten in the
body parts business.
Robert Huber
Yorba LindaCraig RuttleAssociated Press
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN acknowledges supporters at a campaign rally in New York in September.
Shaking a fist
Re “Elizabeth Warren and the rest of us elites are in for some rough seas,” Opinion, Oct. 27
I
’ve learned a lot frominsightful opinion pieces in the L.A. Times, but I was dismayed to
read Joel Stein’s assertion in his article on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential candidacy
that the “main factor in Donald Trump’s win wasn’t economic anxiety.”
Deaths of despair (suicide, drug overdoses and alcoholism) have become so widespread in
the U.S. that they’re dragging down life expectancy for the whole country, and the correla-tion between electoral districts hardest hit by this scourge and their votes for Trump ought to
make Stein reconsider his claim.
Maybe we Americans resent the elites of both major parties because our jobs are precarious,
we’ve mortgaged our futures for our kids’ education, and our healthcare system is a cruel joke —
not to mention an infrastructure that’s crumbling in the face of climate catastrophes. I suspect
that the Joel Steins of our country have been too busy preening themselves to notice all the frus-
tration, pain and dashed hopes.
As an egghead academic with a doctorate from Columbia University, I resent getting lumped
with our feckless political elites in lame apologias for their egregious failures.
Sam Coleman, Huntington Beach
Pasadena resident Guy
Webster believes Trump
wasn’t conducting “foreign
policy”:
While I thank the letter
writer for his military serv-
ice, I strenuously challenge
his opinion that members of
the armed services should
treat potential criminal
activity, such as soliciting a
foreign nation to interfere
with a U.S. election, as a
matter of an administra-
tion’s “foreign policy” with
which they should not inter-
fere.
That is a short step from
military compliance with
the illegal torture practices
of the Bush administration.
The world is still paying the
costs of the military’s un-
questioning obedience in
that case.
A uniform does not re-move the responsibilities of
citizenship.Angela Black of Long
Beach draws a historical
parallel:
Although I’ve never been
in the military, it would
seem that no Army officer is
obliged to remain silent
when witnessing behavior
by superiors that is clearly
illegal or unconstitutional.
President Trump’s ac-
tions on that July 25 phone
call with the new Ukrainian
president were unconstitu-
tional and against our na-
tional security interests.
The Nuremberg trials
showed us the danger of
blind obedience by military
officers.Eric von Ehrenberg of San
Diego points out that mili-
tary personal pledge to
uphold the Constitution:
I take issue with what the
letter writer, a retired lieu-
tenant colonel, stated.When the House
launched an impeachment
inquiry into whether the
president violated his oath
of office by asking for a
personal political favor from
a foreign government for his
sole benefit rather than that
of the United States, it then
follows that the president, if
the allegation is true, did
not faithfully execute the
duties of his office as re-
quired by the Constitution.
As a military officer, the
letter writer took an oath
upon his commissioning to“support and defend the
Constitution of the United
States.” He did not pledge
blind allegiance to any
president.Bill Mace of San Gabriel
says this is not about Vind-
man’s opinion on policy:
Vindman clearly can
differentiate between a
wrong decision or policy,
and actions that are obvi-
ously unlawful.
Resign? That’s like ask-
ing good people to do noth-
ing.LETTERS ON LETTERS
A soldier’s defenders
D
id Army Lt. Col.Alexander Vindman violate his
oath as a military officer when he cooperated with
the House’s impeachment inquiry? It isn’t clearwhat legal and professional consequences the White
House’s top Ukraine expert may face for disobeying an or-
der from his commander in chief and giving his deposition
to Congress on Tuesday, but he does have the support of
one group of people: L.A. Times letter writers.
On Thursday, a letter from a retired Air Force lieutenantcolonel took Vindman to task for not resigning his commis-
sion if he felt strongly enough about the Trump adminis-
tration’s Ukraine policy to testify before Congress. In re-
sponse, more than a dozen readers came to Vindman’s de-
fense; here are some of their letters.
—Paul Thornton, letters editorManuel Balce CenetaAssociated Press
ARMYLt. Col. Alexander Vindman, center, testified
in the House impeachment investigation this week.Numbers
and letters
A quick breakdown of
the mail we received
from readers this week:651
Usable letters to the
editor were received
between last Friday
and this Friday.101
Letters were written
about wildfires and public
safety blackouts, the
most-discussed topic.81
Readers discussed the
House impeachment
inquiry, the week’s
runner-up topic.45
Letters were written
in reaction to the
resignation of Rep. Katie
Hill.HOW TO WRITE TO US
Please send letters to
[email protected]. For
submission guidelines, see
latimes.com/letters or call
1-800-LA TIMES, ext. 74511.latimes.com/opinion
MOST POPULAR IN OPINION
50 years ago I helped invent the internet. How
did it go so wrong?Katie Hill should not have resigned.The GOP asked for a floor vote on impeach-
ment. Now they’ve got one.Tulsi Gabbard may not be a Russian asset. But
she sure talks like one.ENTER THE FRAY
Visit latimes.com/
topic/enter-the-fray.STAY CONNECTED
8 facebook.com/
latimesopinion
8 twitter.com/
latimesopinionEXECUTIVECHAIRMANDr. Patrick Soon-Shiong
EXECUTIVEEDITORNorman Pearlstine
MANAGINGEDITOR
Scott Kraft
SENIORDEPUTYMANAGINGEDITOR
Kimi Yoshino
DEPUTYMANAGINGEDITORS
Sewell Chan, Shelby Grad, Shani O. Hilton,
Julia Turner
ASSISTANTMANAGINGEDITORS
Len De Groot, Stuart Emmrich,
Loree Matsui, Angel Rodriguez
Opinion
Nicholas Goldberg EDITOR OF THEEDITORIALPAGES
FOUNDED DECEMBER 4, 1881 Sue Horton OP-ED ANDSUNDAYOPINIONEDITOR