Inbox: Oct. 8, 2007

Political spouses are very important [Sept. 24]. The American voter is looking for a candidate whose significant other is intelligent, compassionate and, most important, an asset to the U.S. We don’t want a President’s spouse to be outspoken, domineering or suffering from Leona Helmsley syndrome–an inflated sense of superiority. Judith Giuliani is a classic example. If Rudy is the Republican nominee, she will be a deficit to him. Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama mean well for their husbands but probably would not be so outspoken if it were a closer race. Everyone knows Bill Clinton–and either loves or hates him–so he doesn’t have to say much.

Robert S. Katz Stamford, Conn.

It is interesting that the only person speaking pejoratively about her spouse is Michelle Obama, the wife of a leading contender for the job. She may think she is humanizing Barack by calling him “stinky and snore-y,” but these undermining, embarrassing comments make me wonder if she feels a bit threatened by her husband’s success and broad appeal.

Sally Jorgensen, Santa Cruz, Calif.

I would not have thought it possible to write about the role of the President’s spouse without mentioning the remarkable partnership forged between Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt. I guess that would have spoiled your simplified story line reporting an orderly progression of liberation from then to now.

Dick Scott, Stanford, Calif.

How unfortunate for Hillary Clinton to be forever linked to Bill’s distasteful legacy of immorality and scandal. The weight of that baggage might keep her from rising to the presidency.

Joseph M. Kosanovic Camp Hill, PA.

My only interest in the candidates pertains to their positions on the Iraq war, accessible health care, the environment and whether they will work to transfer political power from the wallet to the ballot. Considering whether a wife is a divorcé, CEO or stay-at-home mom is more of the pageantry of personality that characterized both the 2000 and ’04 elections. The past seven years are a reminder of the consequences of thinking more about the candidates’ families than what their platforms mean for our families.

Jacqueline Carrick, Haddonfield, N.J.

Joe Klein eloquently expressed his disgust over the General David Petraeus dog and pony show before Congress [Sept. 24]. But Klein failed to mention the real reason the Senators didn’t press Petraeus for legitimate answers: the military-industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about is a sinister weave of self-interest involving the nation’s corporate, military and political powerhouses.

Ken Hicks, Lincoln University, PA.

I appreciated Nancy Gibbs’ column about several recent warnings delivered on the state of the environment [Sept. 24]. Yet I am at a loss to know what the solutions might be. Gibbs noted that even drastic reductions in greenhouse gases would not be enough to prevent the melting of the Arctic ice cap. We need to know the maximum amount of harmful waste that can be tolerated globally and devise a concrete plan to stay within that limit.

Claudia Schaer, Calgary, ALTA.

“How fearsome must the headlines be about tomorrow before people change their ways today?” Gibbs asked. Psychologically speaking, people need to worry more about the present to change. Our brains are hardwired to respond to immediate dangers, not ones that are years or decades away. And a term like global warming is too benign, especially for those like me who live in a cold climate and might welcome an increase of a few degrees. Perhaps we should use the term global boiling, like the proverbial experiment in which a frog stays in a gradually warming pot of water and eventually dies.

H. Steven Moffic, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Get your heads out of the sand! We won’t have to worry about global warming 50 years from now or, for that matter, five years from now if we keep ignoring the fact that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists will make everything extinct.

Ramona Rettzo, Trenton, N.J.

Sometime in the 22nd century (if we get there as a species), schoolchildren in a new dark age will read about all the sirens going off at the same time–“ice melting, species vanishing and cities choking the people who live in them”–and no one in power giving these life-or-death matters the full attention they deserved.

Carlos A. Leo, Hollywood, Fla.

Remembering a Master’s Voice

I mourn the passing of the world’s greatest tenor, Luciano Pavarotti [Sept. 24]. We are lucky to have his recordings, which are his legacy. I saw all his operas at the Met and was allowed to go backstage to meet him. He was gracious and kind and autographed many pictures and posters for me. I will miss him.

James J. LaRosa, Albany, N.Y.

Pavarotti was not only the “opera king” of Italy but also the opera king of the world. Even those who are not opera fans were enthralled by Pavarotti’s powerful presence and unparalleled voice, which was kissed by God. The countless hearts that ache from his passing should have found some comfort in a fitting tribute (not just “funeral facts”) by Time that reflected the global appreciation of this magnificent man and the priceless gifts he offered to everyone.

Mary Anne Nolan, Voorheesville, N.Y.

Beats from the Streets

Kudos for interviewing 50 Cent [Sept. 24.] Learning that his nickname is “a metaphor for change” gives me greater respect for him. But I take issue with his claim that Kanye West’s music is “aimed at a straight pop audience.” West’s hip-hop is less gangsta and therefore softer, but it is also more substantive. If anything, gangsta rap is more pop. I love a good 50 Cent beat, but I keep waiting for him to say something more meaningful. Instead of competing, 50 Cent and West should collaborate and sell even more!

Ezra Parzybok, Northampton, Mass.

I was disheartened to see your 10 questions for 50 Cent. People like him are the reason I don’t subscribe to pop-culture magazines. You degrade your publication when you print anything remotely related to beefs between people who claim to be artists yet who appear to be nothing but street thugs. The more we glorify the gangsta lifestyle, the more it will pervade everyday life. I prefer not to have to bulletproof my car, thank you very much.

Phyllis McCabe, Hazlet, N.J.

On every anniversary of Sept. 11, I think of how much trust was lost among so many Americans and Muslims [Sept. 17]. Yet not long after that tragic day, one seemingly delicate American woman with an iron will and amazing intellect trusted my family and me with her most precious treasures for a week: she left her two teenage daughters with us in Montreal when she went to a conference in the U.S. In that moment of difficulty, she trusted a bearded Muslim colleague and his veiled wife. God knows I would have given my life to safeguard that trust. While they were with me, her daughters were as precious to me as if they were my own. Although we should be prudent, the hate shown to us by a few people should never stifle the possibility of building bridges with others who sincerely offer us their love and friendship.

Asif Iftikhar, Lahore, Pakistan

James Poniewozik’s cleverly perceptive essay on the new CBS reality series Kid Nation made this baby boomer choke back tears for the good old days [Sept. 24]. In the 1950s and early ’60s it was neither unlawful nor uncaring for adults to say children should be seen but not heard. Kids got to be kids as they ran around outside playing hide-and-seek under the stars without worry of being snatched, molested or organized into youth activities, while parents sipped beer or pop while playing Yahtzee with their pals after hand-washing the dinner dishes. Nobody felt slighted, and nobody called Child Protective Services. How sad and ironic that television–primarily responsible for making a mishmash of family life–should inadvertently be the one to call attention to the current sorry state of affairs by dragging the poor little ones off to a ghost town all by themselves. Don’t adults get it? Kids nowadays live in ghost towns without ever having to leave home.

Greg Joseph, Glendale, Ariz.

Is the uproar over Kid Nation about abuse or fear that the children will succeed and put parents out of a job? We cannot hold our children’s wings all their lives and then expect them to know how to fly when we let them go. Kids need parents, but they also need the freedom to learn and grow on their own. Let them experience the sting of failure and the joy of success. And trust them!

Danica Conway, Longmont, Colo.

Poniewozik’s article was a quick yet deeply gratifying read. In one page he managed to sum up the rationale and angst we “helicopter” parents have about our parenting style. On the one hand, we feel it is right to sacrifice deeply for our children, and on the other we have a nagging suspicion that there is a good reason no previous generation raised children this way. It doesn’t take a sage, however, to know that children aren’t designed to raise themselves.

Dorothea Dougboh, Carteret, N.J.

What Would Jesus Censor?

It is hard to believe that the TV academy yielded to the Catholic League and censored Kathy Griffin’s Emmy Awards speech because she said she didn’t thank Jesus Christ [Sept. 24]. It is a very painful reminder that we are losing our democratic freedom of religion, speech and the press and are moving toward a dictatorship in which organized religion controls what we hear and see. Next, the Catholic League will censor the media from reporting sex crimes by priests and the resulting multimillion-dollar lawsuits.

Alton Hardman, Altus, Okla.

Isn’t this the same mentality that Westerners fault–indeed, ridicule–in Muslims who are offended by references to Muhammad? The old saying “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” comes to mind.

Jeanette F. Huber, Kinsale, Ireland

In “God as Their Running Mate,” Michael Kinsley said that, for him, anyone who believes in the literal truth of religious texts is “too credulous to be President” [Sept 17]. That would apply to a number of our past Presidents. Kinsley seems to think you can’t be a good President unless you are in line with Kinsley’s personal preferences.

Robert Gibbons, alexandria, va.

I guess Kinsley fears that literal-minded Jewish leaders would ban pork and Catholics would outlaw birth control. And Muslims? Presumably he thinks they would promote terrorism, of course. Fortunately, the majority of Americans are clever enough to see beyond stereotypes. Great leaders successfully balance morality, democracy and freedom of choice regardless of religious faith.

J.P. Wirig, Walnut Creek, Calif.

Kudos to Kinsley for highlighting the relevance of leaders’ religious beliefs. Literal dogmatic beliefs of any kind can lead to behavior ranging from the benignly bizarre to the frighteningly dangerous. When people seek truth based on faith rather than evidence, their decisions are connected to reality only coincidentally and are often divorced from it. The risks that we all face when powerful people act on untested beliefs should be obvious. I can only hope that one day the majority will embrace candidates for whom reason, rather than God, is their adviser.

Brendan Cameron, Vancouver

Preserving Kids’ Health

Re “Hyper Kids? Check Their Diet” [Sept. 24]: As the mother of two chemically sensitive children, I am delighted to hear the medical community has finally published conclusive evidence that children are detrimentally affected by preservatives and additives. I also applaud your writer Claudia Wallis’ emphasis on promoting a more natural diet. Unfortunately, some children’s medications–including pain relievers, cough syrups, antibiotics and antihistamines–contain dyes, flavorings and/or sodium benzoate. Parents are forced to either administer these chemicals to their chemically sensitive children when their immune systems are at their weakest or do without. I challenge the medical and pharmaceutical communities to continue their research and produce medications that are free of additives.

Kerrin Smith, Kirksville, MO.

Wine for All, and All for Wine

Why are wine connoisseurs so opposed to trying something new–and economical, efficient and unpretentious–like wine in a box [Sept. 10]? The only thing élitist about wine these days is the self-perception of the person who’s drinking it. Let’s try something fresh in wine.

Jessica Hillyard, Tamsey, Minn.

Â

Â