Whether to ask about the US role in Sept. 11
Running your Sept. 11 article "Is America the good guy?" took some nerve. Even though the headline implies a black-and-white view of the world, thank you for fulfilling the right, and duty, of the press to ask and publish some answers to unpopular questions.
Carrie Browder Gragg
Fort Collins, Colo.
Regarding "Is America the good guy?": Thank you for this gutsy article, delivered on a day when America was awash in remembrances of the horrific events of one year ago.
It's important for Americans to remember not only what happened on Sept. 11, but also some of the reasons why it happened.
We will only be safe, and able to protect our country and the values we hold dear, when we cultivate this deeper understanding of people in other lands, of other cultures and points of view.
Your article "Is America the good guy?" may have some merit, but you picked a terrible day to run it. It was inappropriate and offensive to most Americans on this solemn day of remembrance. You could have picked any other day of the year to run it.
Carolyn M. Pribble
I agree with your Sept. 11 editorial "Ground zeal." I never considered that our Statue of Liberty was not standing still, but poised to move forward. I see now what this entails, for we all must embody dynamic growth: from countries and international bodies, to our personal lives and local institutions, including the groups we work for and support individually.
Robert C. Goodspeed
Regarding the Sept. 11 editorial "Marijuana Lines Drawn": If you are concerned about social issues, I suggest that you focus your efforts at examining how many people are in prison because they smoked a few joints. The damage done to an individual caught with a marijuana cigarette is far greater than the actual use of the cigarette.
If the government were truly interested in public-health issues, they would have done something about tobacco and alcohol.
José Angel Hernández
With respect to the Sept. 13 article "California passes broad abortion-rights legislation," you quote David Garrow, a law professor at Emory University in Atlanta, to the effect that he knows of no other state legislation that is "this dramatically and specifically pro-choice."
He must not know about New Hampshire, where all restrictions on abortion were completely repealed in 1997.
The new California law, by contrast, expressly provides that performance of an abortion is unauthorized if the fetus is believed to be viable, and continuation of the pregnancy would pose no risk to the life or health of the mother.
Regarding your Sept. 13 article "The family hour makes a comeback," there should be enough intelligence and creativity in the entertainment industry to come up with shows worthy of letting one's children watch.
I can't believe some of the shows on TV that air as early as 9 p.m. It makes parenting even harder when I have to act as TV cop and shield my kids from inappropriate programs.
It isn't the entertainment industry's job to teach my kid morals, but it wouldn't hurt if they tried to lend a hand once in a while.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We cannot 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.