Hannah's tale sheds light on adoption option "A Home for Hannah" (Sept. 15) and "Tearful reunion of a war's 'lost' children" (Sept. 16) about international adoptions were welcome, relevant reminders of the universality of families and life. I hope legislators take note and examine the barriers to adoption within our own borders. Your articles could also provide common ground to proponents of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to embrace, instead, the adoption option. Tim Wibking, Franklin, Tenn.
Thank you for the article on one family's adoption of Hannah from Russia. The story is yet one more reason a subscription to the Monitor is worth every single penny. It was haunting but warming at the same time; how is that possible? A string of prayers for the Rocklein family. Tom Bliss, Kirkland, Wash.
Concern over 'spiritual mapping' I read with concern your recent article on the practice by some Christian groups of "spiritual mapping," - that is, targeting areas and individuals for conversion through prayer ("Targeting cities with 'spiritual mapping,' prayer," Sept. 23). It is astonishing to me that religious leaders would recommend to their congregations practices that smack of occultism in the name of Christ. "Spiritual mapping" seems an aggressive substitution of human will for God's will, a scheme for conversion rather than individual yielding to the transforming power of Christ. Jeff Steffens, Medina, Ohio
Workaholics unite under minimum wage Regarding the article "Why GOP may embrace minimum-wage hike," (Sept. 29): The claim of the Employment Policies Institute that the average family income at the minimum wage level was $37,782 per year gives new meaning to the word "workaholic." This figure is close to the annual income of someone working 20 hours per day for 365 days at $5.15 per hour. Can it be that this "institute" argues in favor of a considerable lowering of the minimum wage? Fred Franklin, Cambridge, Mass.
Nuclear waste incinerator's defense Regarding the article "Now, the rich tackle pollution" (Sept. 8): Your reporter passed up the chance to write a factual, fair, and unbiased report on the planned nuclear waste incinerator in Idaho, though he talked to enough people, including me, to have done so. He devoted nearly a page to the incinerator's critics, but only a short paragraph to supporters or anyone knowledgeable about the technical details.
He described the strong opposition to the project in Jackson, Wyo., but he didn't mention the strong support where the project will be, in eastern Idaho. He quoted an accusation that British Nuclear Fuels (the contractor) has a bad environmental and safety record, but he didn't mention the effective cleanup work they have done in England. He quoted statements of filter failures at the present Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory's nuclear waste incinerator, but he failed to mention that it was one incident, and it caused no emissions because it was only a pre-filter.
He printed a secondhand quote that the death rate from incineration is higher than from other (yet undeveloped) methods. But how high is "higher?" One can calculate a trivial, but higher than zero, death risk for any human activity. What normal daily risks does incineration compare to? One-sided reporting may make more exciting stories, but it isn't honest. John E. Tanner, Jr., Idaho Falls, Idaho
Editor's note: The letter writer's concerns were included in our article, but were regrettably dropped in the editing process.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to email@example.com
(c) Copyright 1999. The Christian Science Publishing Society