MAILBAG:

In his latest, (“Nanny state says ’no cellphones,’” July 12), Jim Righeimer bemoans the new car cellphone restrictions because of the inconvenience it causes him. He implies society has infringed on his rights to use cellphones in a misguided effort to protect him from his own folly. He would have us believe he has “no problem driving a car safely and talking on the phone at the same time” for 2.14 hours a day. Truth is, the restrictions are not really meant to protect Righeimer from his own folly.

Most of us would say we don’t care if he wants to steer into a tree while dictating his column to the Pilot. We’d probably say the same to folks who don’t want to fasten their seat belts. If they want to fly through their windshield in a rear-end collision, a lot of us would say have a nice trip.

Ditto to motorcycle riders who don’t like helmet laws. Want to feel the wind in your hair, collect bugs in your teeth, and emulate Humpty Dumpty? Not my problem.

Problem is they can’t guarantee that their behavior won’t affect innocent bystanders; and, in economic terms, we would all pay higher premiums on the insurance policies that protect us against irresponsible behavior.

Bob Schmidt

Corona del Mar

Pastor’s comments sound like sour grapes

Apparently Ric Olsen still doesn’t believe there is a difference between the original grants by Congress to charitable organizations that help the poor and required that there be no discrimination based on race or religion, and Bush’s faith-based initiative, which has no such requirements, and allows the churches to discriminate to their heart’s content, and use the money in any way that they please (“Should program be broadened?” In Theory, July 12).

Olsen’s comments only apply against the original system, but do not apply to the Initiative, which was supposedly the subject! Thus everything he wrote was based on a wrong premise. Or is he just mad that his church was not singled out as a beneficiary of the initiative? If so, he should admit that the biased and arbitrary application of the initiative is so bad it should be eliminated.

Jerry Parks

Editor’s note: Jerry Parks, a member of the Humanist Assn. of Orange County, also contributed a response to the same In Theory question.

Argument rewrites history from far right

Regarding Robert Carolan’s support of the GI Bill (“Today’s veterans just as worthy of receiving GI Bill,” June 10), I also support it and Joseph Bell (“GI bill should be supported,” June 5).

Allowing Carolan’s statement that Franklin Roosevelt sent the Army against the Bonus Army is so far from the truth as to boggle the mind. The order was issued in the summer of 1932 by President Hoover. Roosevelt was elected the next November! This is rewriting history from the Far Right — amazing even for Orange County. It is very much like John Belushi’s character in “Animal House” declaring that the Germans had bombed Pearl Harbor!

Please have someone proof your letters — not for opinion but for historical accuracy.

Thank you.

Dennis Hurst

Newport Beach