War on terror will reduce US quality of life
Regarding "The tricky part of defining 'terrorism'" (March 7, Opinion): As we figure out where to take the war on terrorism next we must be reminded that our disciplining of the world comes at a cost. Whether the US uses its power to discipline the world or merely keep its industrial-military complex busy, we are continuing to consume wealth that could be used to benefit Americans. An inevitable result of our role as the world's police force is a lesser quality of life in our own country. Resources will be used elsewhere that could be expended to improve American educational and cultural performance, diminish the widening gap between rich and poor, provide adequate healthcare, and increase rather than lower the quality of goods and services. Do we Americans really understand the full price to be paid for being the world's disciplinarian?
Regarding "Mugabe's slow fall from grace" (March 8): Robert Mugabe has gone from hero to tyrant in the span of his 22-year hold on power in Zimbabwe. Mr. Mugabe has attempted to remove his adversaries by threats of violence, preventing a fair run by his chief political opposition Morgan Tsvangirai. Recent polls indicate a majority of voters are for Mr. Tsvangirai, but that a large percentage of the electorate will not publicly state its preference. Zimbabwean pollsters say people are too frightened to say for whom they will vote. My concern is that if a man like Mr. Mugabe is returned to office, what will the international community have to do to prevent the continuation of unlawful land seizures, thuggery, and generalized corruption, since Mugabe won't?
Regarding "Oh, baby! Look how your ranks grow" (March 6, Homefront): I found the statement, "Gen-X women expect to achieve success without making the same domestic trade-offs" to be of great significance in defining the change now taking place within the work place. Our country continues to define itself in a most intriguing way. For myself the article struck some familiar cords having had a mother in the work force, while growing up. Women who work should be able to center their priorities more on the child rather than their job, yet still be able to take part in financial responsibilities.
I disagree with those that feel negatively toward this change. The long-term effects of having mothers focusing more attention on their children will help society in a positive way. Having mothers in the home is where success is to be achieved.
Regarding "Canadian provinces move toward privatizing healthcare" (Feb. 28): As a citizen of Alberta, I favor the current, universal healthcare system. I see no point in changing what has served well for 55 years.
One of the main problems with privatizing healthcare is that it would create a system where the rich would move to the front of the line, while the poor wait their turn. Why is healthcare an issue at all? The polls show that, although Canadians recognize some changes must be made, most think highly of the present system. The majority of Canadians are willing to make compromises, including paying higher taxes, to make the current system work. This suggests a larger problem - a break in the link between the government and the people. Perhaps the provincial premiers should forget about grandiose ideas and profits and get to know the people they should represent.
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.