PUBLIC FORUM : PANEL'S EXCLUSION OF PEROT TRIGGERS DEBATE.

The decision to exclude Ross Perot and other third-party candidates from the presidential debates is ill-advised and undemocratic.

The purpose of the Presidential Debate Commission should not be to predict or influence the outcome of the presidential race, but rather to expose the viewing public to the widest possible array of political positions. By limiting the debate to just Bob Dole and President Clinton - considered by many, myself included, to be simply different sides of the same coin - the very commission charged with increasing public awareness in actuality ends up choking off the public discourse that is so essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

The commission's reasoning boils down to this: Media coverage (in the form of the presidential debate) should be afforded exclusively to ``serious'' candidates, this in spite of the fact that the only way to become a ``serious'' candidate is to receive media coverage. Such muddleheaded reasoning does a disservice to all who believe in and support a participatory democracy, and to the informed electorate needed to sustain it.

- Ronald O. Richards

West Los Angeles 

People, it is time to wake up. Don't you remember the elections of 1992? Has it been so long that you have forgotten all of his flip charts and charades on the television screen?

Ross Perot stated that he was interested in getting together with Congress to change its way of doing things. Well, the Republicans gained control of both houses and made the call to Perot for his assistance. They said they needed his help on this balanced-budget bill. Perot's reply was not to get involved.

Perot chooses to build his ego through the American people. He only wants to ``put the United States on the right course'' when he will get the credit. Just look at his list of vice presidential candidates. He had to go to the fourth string to find somebody who would run with him.

Perot has some good ideas. But Perot is only interested in the limelight. A vote for Perot is a vote for his ego.

- Michael L. Sylvia Jr.

Edwards

Now that the elites have decided to keep Ross Perot out of the presidential debates and have shown, thereby, that the system is a scam, it's time for all the minor parties to form a coalition to break the stranglehold of the two elite parties.

One of the first things that the coalition should do is agree that, although they agree on virtually nothing and that they represent views from the very far right to the very far left, they will not let these differences break apart the coalition, whose single function is to ensure that all Americans of all political views be given their say in the direction of this country.

The coalition should then set up its own debates and have empty chairs representing Dole and Clinton and their empty promises and empty visions for America.

Hopefully, such a coalition will move this country toward a true democratic system, whereby the smaller parties will be able to gain seats in Congress, as is the case in most other democracies in the world.

- H. Millard

Costa Mesa 

Same-sex marriages

In his letter ``Same-sex marriages'' (Public Forum, Sept. 15), Fred Coble persists with an idea that just is not true. He would like to believe that homosexuality is genetic. Yet no scientific evidence demonstrates this.

His analogy comparing homosexuality to left-handedness or insanity is unsatisfying at best. Other arguments for same-sex marriage are based in large part on a feel-good, ``do the right thing'' attitude. These concerns are little more than slogans for pulling heartstrings. Marriage between two people of the opposite sex was created for several sound reasons. It defined a stabilizing relationship between two people, which helped ensure a home for them and children that usually follow.

In the thousands of years that society has had marriage, not one has accepted same-sex uniPons. I would ask what is the benefit to society in allowing same-sex unions? No children can come from such a couple. Studies show that heterosexual couples are better role models for raising children.

Homosexuals are violating no laws in living together. Who is harmed by not allowing same-sex marriages? Nobody. What rational person would demand that over 98 percent of the population accept some silly notion just because a tiny minority is miffed?

The issue of same-sex marriages goes far beyond a few platitudes. So before embarking on yet one more social experiment, let's think about what harm may come from it as well.

- Lorin Wainwood

Newbury Park

Will someone please tell me why it's ``unfair'' to deny homosexual partners the benefits enjoyed by married couples? The love that motivates a man and woman to get married is part of an instinctive need to provide a stable home for raising children. The wife and children usually don't have their own jobs with all the retirement benefits, medical benefits, etc. Family coverage certainly makes sense for them.

Homosexuals, however, have needs that they feel are more important than procreation. The family model doesn't apply to them. Unless one has to stay home to cook and clean for the other, nothing is stopping each one from getting his own job, his own benefits and taking care of himself.

- Peter Marlow

Granada Hills

Insurance fraud

When we talk about insurance fraud, we never talk about the biggest offenders - the insurance companies. The insurance companies bought and paid for our insurance commissioner, Charles Quackenbush, by donating $2.4 million just to get him elected.

The foolish voters should have spent some time doing their homework, reading what Harvey Rosenfield and Ralph Nader had to say.

The only thing Quackenbush has done since taking office is to go after insurance fraud, which incidentally only saves money for the insurance companies, and believe me, you as the consumer will never get Pto see any of this in any shape or form.

So when we next have to vote for an insurance commissioner, please take the time to check out who you are voting for.

- Robert Tarallo

La Crescenta

`Empty promises'

I vote in all elections, even the not-so-big ones.

It's getting harder all the time to know who to vote for. The candidates make all kinds of promises and when they get elected they don't fulfill them.

One of the issues Bob Dole and Bill Clinton talk about is fixing the tax system. Talk is cheap; what we need is action. I for one am getting tired of their empty promises.

- Granada Lietz

Mission Hills

Change `3-strikes'

While I agree with Edward Butler (``Crime and punishment: Three strikes struck out,'' Viewpoint, Sept. 15) that ``three strikes, you're out'' has failed, I cannot agree with his conclusions.

The voters were told that the law would incarcerate repeat violent offenders. Instead, we get aging shoplifter junkies. We could write a law that incarcerates those who commit three violent crimes in a five-year period. Or better yet, we could return discretion to the judges, where it belongs.

There is always discretion in the system. The officer decides to arrest or not. The district attorney decides on the charge, the venue, to bargain or to try. The jury determines guilt.

The judge should decide the appropriate sentence for both the crime and the criminal. As it stands, ``three strikes'' has placed most of the discretion in the hands of the district attorney. In my view this is wrong. The district attorney is the most political of the decision makers. He controls costly fiascos like the Simpson and McMartin trials. He charges mothers after the loss of a child in an accident where a car seat was not used. Individuals are regularly overcharged to induce agreement to plea bargains or undercharged to avoid ``three strikes'' trials.

It can be said that this is the district attorney's job. But neither electoral politicsP nor the career considerations should dominate the process. That should be the judges' job.

We should eliminate or revise ``three strikes.'' A judge should hold a hearing of the facts, including statements by victims and read probation and sentencing reports before a plea bargain is accepted. Judges should be allowed to ignore sentencing guidelines if they will write a reviewable and reversible decision. In short, they should be allowed to use their judgment and discretion. It's an American idea called balance of power.

- William S. Pirone

Sherman Oaks

Putting brakes on smog plan

In a article that appeared in the Daily News on Sept. 13, ``Lawmakers want brakes put on smog plan,'' the Associated Press quoted Bob Brown of the state Bureau of Automotive Repair as saying ``suspending the program is not an option'' due to ``the draconian sanctions California faces from the federal government'' if the air pollution abatement program is halted.

First, let's get one thing straight. These are not ``federal dollars.'' They are California taxpayer dollars. The Legislature enacted the new smog program and the Legislature can remove it. The state of California has the toughest air quality control regulations in the nation and it is already costing the citizens of this state billions of dollars.

California is the most populous state. California has the most automobiles of any state. Californians support the automobile industry more than any state.

If you live in Oxnard and work in Hawthorne, there is no public transportation that will get you to work. If you live in Camarillo and take daily radiation treatments at a facility in Hollywood, there is no public transportation.

If Brown thinks the federal government will risk facing an uprising of 30 million Californians, I suggest he rethink his position. In point of fact, the state Legislature could do away with his bureaucracy completely, especially since he believes his bureau is above our elected officials in SacramentoP.

- Sylvia Kinyoun

Thousand Oaks