Jobs report was lipstick on a pig
The June jobs report came out declaring 288,000 new jobs were added to the work force. The media got excited; the stock market reached new highs. Looking into the report itself from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website you get a completely different picture.
How many were full-time jobs desired by those looking for a full-time job? In Table A-8 you see 275,000 of these were "part-time" jobs ranging up to 34 hours a workweek. Part-time for economic reasons are those looking for full-time work not found because of slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work or seasonal declines in demand. Only 13,000 new full-time nonfarm payroll jobs were added in June 2014.
Bias comes in several forms. It comes in the political agenda of those publishing a newspaper, in those they hire and in what they report or fail to report. The Valley Times did nothing to report the actual story; it might as well be an extension of Pravda.
Philip R. La Scola
U.S. shouldn't have to adopt world's kids
At one time we used to be the world's police force, and we saw how that turned out. Now I hear Riverside, California, has been told to be ready to receive 100 new immigrants every 72 hours for the next several months. I know our current policies are not the best rules But They Are The Rules, I would like to see America work to better change/enforce our current policies.
If the waves of invading immigrants are not happy in their homeland they should stay home and fix their own homelands first. I know this will cause a disruption in the status quo and many could be hurt in the process but this is what Americans have developed over time with many of our ancestors paying the price to get to where we are. Why should we have to endure the educational and financial welfare strain or the resurgence of whooping cough, polio and TB from people who have not been immunized?
In my opinion America should not become the world's adoption agency.
Migrant flood to backfire on its promoters
The clear unwillingness of President Obama and the Democrats to stop the flood of illegal immigration is nothing other than a naked power grab, designed to ensure permanent Democratic domination so as to transform America into a European-style Socialist nation. Sadly, this tactic may well succeed. But if it does, the adage will apply to all who seek this: "You had better be careful what you hope for." For this power grab is not only immoral and unconstitutional, it will destroy what made America the greatest nation on earth.
Opinion page no place for some opinions
I am tiring of rants that are regularly submitted as "letters." Most recent was a screed from Mark Marcotte (July 10), in which he presents his biases and personal misinformation as "a fact."
With a virtual laundry list of Barry (Obama)'s and liberals' missteps, from climate change to immigration, he implies that these multitudinous issues have simple solutions -- which he fails to offer. This kind of non-dialogue not only exacerbates divisions but also displays the growing tendency to avoid complex personal research in favor of rhetoric and blame. If he knows for a fact that climate change is a hoax, he needs to offer evidence that counters the overwhelming number of scientists who find it otherwise. If he wants change to immigration, perhaps a thoughtful letter to those in the House blocking reform might be a better option than offering an unfocused tirade.
We live in complex times, where simple answers that also meet the needs of American fairness and justice are few and far between. Letters are supposed to provoke thought, not display its absence.
'Post office aid' preferable to foreign aid
An article in the July 14 issue of the Bay Area News Group's Tri-Valley Times titled "Electric vehicles rolling out" (page B3) describes a federal government-supported plan for 90 electric vehicles to arrive in the Bay Area and be put into mostly government service. I'm all for that for the many reasons cited in the article. Also described was the many logical applications for such vehicles: basically short-run delivery with overnight rest (recharge).
To my thinking, however, not mentioned but the most glaring potential use would be U.S. Postal Service's delivery vehicles. That department runs thousands of such mini-trucks that travel only short mileage daily with overnight recharging time.
I recognize that the quasi-independent Postal Service is budget-strapped and could not in one swoop replace their mini-trucks with electrics, but they could have a policy that those vehicle replacements would be plug-ins.
As a matter of fact, I propose that the Congress get this policy started with a supplement of several billion dollars to the USPS budget. I would rather see such billions go to "post office aid" than similar billions go to any number of foreign aid recipients that I can think of.
Paul L. Anderson
High court's mistake huge on clinic zones
The Supreme Court's unanimous decision to strike down abortion clinic buffer zones seems to be to be an unwise constitutional effort that could bring about serious consequences by zealots who frequent clinics without any intentions of peaceful dialogues with others in exercising their constitutional rights on sidewalks in proximity to abortion clinic entrances.
How easy it is now for some fanatic to spit in the face of a woman intent on having a procedure, throw acid on her or, God forbid, shoot her at close range. There are no absolutes in the framing of the First Amendment as adjudicated by the court statement that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous for the Supreme Court justices to have their own buffer zone while denying others this privilege. How would church members and others feel if they were regularly accosted by pedestrians giving umbrage with scurrilous posters and vituperative language in the faces of parishioners at the entrance of their places of worship? Should opposing groups now be encouraged to petition in front of people's homes or places of business? Just how far do we want harassment to be tolerated on the pavement in front of stores, clinics and the like?
This was an unwise decision by nine justices with very strong religious convictions. It could have terrible repercussions.