Mailbag:

The week some laud the Daily Pilot as a “treasure to the community,” the Pilot turns its front page over to an inflammatory bunch of disinformation artists decrying euthanasia of seniors and the murdering of “baby and grannie” in the guise of healthcare reform (“Locals decry health plan,” Wednesday).

What did I miss? Aren’t those seniors and babies already covered by the public option in health care, i.e., Medicare?

Has Medicare really been murdering them for the past 40 years without anybody noticing?

And if anybody is out to murder the kids, isn’t it the folks in Sacramento who are dropping kids out of public health-care options in droves?

Others interviewed (without rebuttal) deplored the prospect of health-care rationing, delays and substandard treatment under proposed reforms.

Yet, some of the biggest complaints about the current system involve bureaucratic delays and outright rejection of treatments recommended by physicians (in my personal experience, an MRI).

Isn’t this rationing and substandard care perpetrated by corporate bureaucrats? Then, of course, the ultimate in rationing is denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions in the current system.

There’s a lot of misinformation being pumped out there, much of it aimed at creating doubt and fear about change and designed to preserve the vested interests in today’s imperfect system.

When it’s the news section rather than the op-ed section, let’s hear it for more balanced coverage!

BOB SCHMIDT

Newport Beach

Church fight has dragged on too long

I carefully read the Rev. Richard Crocker’s letter in regard to St. James and the Episcopal Church (“Church dispute is about property, not sexuality,” July 30).

The reverend argued that the St. James congregation paid for its church by tithing, that the Episcopal Church never had title, and that religious freedom as defined in the Constitution should be sufficient to give title to the congregation, or some entity controlled by the St. James congregation.

It would seem to me a dangerous argument to suppose that those who tithed would acquire title to real estate.

In reality, ownership to land is determined by law, and in this case, the matter was resolved by the Court of Appeal, a decision subsequently confirmed by the California Supreme Court. Both decisions were based on numerous precedents.

It is not quite clear where he positions St. James in regard to the Anglican Communion, but the reverend clearly believes that the approach by the Episcopal Church to scripture disqualifies it in some way from holding the land.

Both courts disposed quite quickly of this line of argument.

Frankly, I find it hard to understand why he and Bishop Bruno are unable to come to some arrangement.

MICHAEL STRONG

Newport Beach