Politicians should read the writing on the wall It was a pleasure to read Sandy Lippe’s “Closing seven libraries — how crazy is that?” (Village News, Nov. 27, page 16.) Rarely do we read such clear, convincing and passionate defense of the people’s agenda. Sanders, Peters and many of our city servants are forever spending our money right and left, but rarely listen to the people’s priorities. Libraries and rec centers are not negotiable. Any public servant who does not understand the critical and essential role libraries play in every community should look for another job. Tanja Winter, La Jolla   Closures or cutbacks: a no-brainer Open letter to our City Council and to the mayor, re closing libraries: I read with interest the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune, dated Nov. 12, where Andrea Tevlin, who works for the City Council, was quoted. As you know, Mayor Sanders says they will save $1.7 million by closing some libraries. Tevlin says that by closing all libraries just 7.5 hours each week the same amount ($1.7 million) can be saved. This solution is a no-brainer to me. Let’s close all of them a few hours each week but keep all of them open. It seems to me that the cost of bringing them back on line in a few years, when the budget would allow, would be very costly, and they would still have to maintain the properties. As things are now, you have personnel in place that know each library, and are trained for their positions, and more of our citizens have access to a library in their neighborhood.  Many users have to walk to the library. Please, let’s do the smart thing in this situation and provide as much of the public as possible with library service. Hopefully the City Council has the power and the foresight to keep all of our libraries open and available. Trish Hausman, Ocean Beach Lung cancer: challenges and kudos for treatment Thank you for your article about Mike Stevens, a lung cancer survivor (“Cancer survivor speaks out for more treatment,” Nov. 20, page B·1).  I agree with his comments about lung cancer research funding. It is woeful!  He is somewhat of a newcomer, though, at three years.  I am a nine-year survivor of lung cancer, having had half of my left and one third of my right lung removed, six courses of chemotherapy and one of radiation. I am still alive due to the excellent doctors and staff at Scripps Green Hospital and Scripps Anderson Outpatient Pavilion who are “ahead of the curve” in treatment. My HMO, Secure Horizons, also helped, never denying any service or procedure and paying most of the tab. Jim Welterlen, La Jolla Tired of 33-year engagement Mr. Thomas editorializes on majority rule (“No apologies needed in voting in favor of Prop 8,” Village News, Nov. 20, page 7). Ahh, majority rule. That means 1 vote or 500,000 votes, right? It’s just that easy to deny a segment of the American people equal rights and their equality with just a simple majority rule vote, isn’t it? I remember learning about the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority but in the case of same sex couples who support marriage by getting married, I guess this doesn’t count.  On June 17, 2008, I married my partner of 33 years. In October, we gathered some of our family and friends, including our sisters and their husbands, together with both opposite and same-sex couples and some divorced friends for dinner to celebrate our June wedding. The collection of marriages at that dinner represented over 150 years of spousal life together. Our family and friends were not threatened by our marriage; in fact they spoke of their disappointment that the State of California took far too long to validate our relationship.  I don’t understand how Mr. Thomas concludes that our marriage will encourage polygamy (which is already practiced by certain religious groups, by the way) and that underage marriage will follow shortly thereafter. I wonder if Mr. Thomas would agree to vote for an initiative that bans divorce, as that would certainly protect traditional marriage? What about barring those unable to conceive from marrying? What about surrogate mothers? What about opposite sex couples who choose not to have children; what about those who choose to adopt? The elderly? Once the state entered into laws regulating marriage, those laws should apply equally to same and opposite sex couples. There are a least 1,300 federal benefits that are not available to same-sex couples yet our laws of the United States say  “…all men (and women — except for gays and lesbians) are created equal” and that we  “…are endowed by ‘our’ Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” (except if you are LGBT). If Mr. Thomas is married, his spouse will enjoy his Social Security upon his death whereas neither I nor my spouse will ever partake of that benefit. I believe in traditional values too; that’s why I married my partner. We were tired of our 33-year engagement. Charles S. Kaminski, La Jolla Mr. President: we need environmental change The following is an open letter to President-elect Barack Obama. We are writing on behalf of all UCSD and nationwide students, as well as all citizens and future generations of Americans concerning the fundamental need for environmental change. We understand the current environmental crisis that is producing a devastating plague of detrimental effects to the world. We urge you to go beyond where past presidential candidates have failed; especially since time is not on our side. The effects of global warming such as hurricanes, diseases and droughts cannot be erased once they have taken place and their effects will be felt worldwide. Warm climate and warm ocean waters is the recipe for hurricanes and droughts. Tropical storms, which have doubled over the past 30 years, in addition to hurricanes such as Katrina in 2005, are indicators of what lies in our future. In 2007, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is indication ” that in the North Atlantic fiercer hurricanes are correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperature.” Global warming is presenting a danger to our health, weather, economy, and is producing fragile ecosystems. Climate is a key contributor to the spreading or lack thereof of diseases, and with the increasing temperature, serious health problems due to viruses such as hantavirus, yellow fever and dengue are rising. Unfortunately, this environmental crisis is largely due to our nation’s dependence on fossil fuel — we are releasing mass amounts of Carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. As of 2007, the CO2 concentration is at 383 parts per million, the highest level it’s ever been in over 650,000 years. Mr. President, it is time to start enforcing long-range solutions that will provide successful changes over time. The United States government has ignored the effects of global warming, and has been far too passive towards finding sources of new alternative energy and reducing our dependency on foreign oil. It is time for the government to take a leadership role, especially when currently the U.S. emits the most greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per capita than any other nation. We need to change our fossil-fuel economy and focus on national conservation of energy. One of the steps necessary for change to occur is for the U.S. to provide incentives for major businesses and corporations to reduce their carbon dioxide emission levels. The U.S. must play a more active role in the worldwide effort of fighting global warming. Fix what previous presidents ignored, such as joining the Kyoto Protocol. We acknowledge the fact that during your first 100 days of office, there will be a great number of issues that you will be concerned with and attempting to successfully pursue, but we demand that you not forget the growing environmental crisis we are experiencing. The environment is closely interconnected with much of the issues we are all facing, and therefore should be taken under special consideration. We, and our successors, depend on it. Courtney Johnsen, JenaLyn Inong, Jace Nguyen, UCSD Can’t new council undo Peters Port appointment? What one City Council can do, another should be able to undo. Therefore, the first order of business for the new City Council should be to cancel the appointment of Scott Peters and appoint another representative. That would start the new City Council off on the right foot with taxpayers. Scott Peters is an example of what is wrong with San Diego politics — politicians looking to line their own pockets with tax dollars. Margarita Solis, Point Loma