Bustamante must urge 'No' on recall
Regarding your Sept. 12 article "Latino political power could be key to recall": Whatever happened to the principle of rising above oneself and choosing the highest good? In the 2000 presidential election, I thought the Supreme Court would do that and call for Florida to do an honest and complete recount, so we could have an elected rather than a selected president. They failed to rise. Now there are stories that Cruz Bustamante is not urging "No" on the recall but, rather, is mainly speaking for his own election. Since the recall in California is a threat to our usual orderly process of voting - and thus to our democracy itself - and is a waste of more than $70 million of our already-low state funds, I wish Bustamante would put principle over self, and strongly urge "No" on the recall at every opportunity. He would still be lieutenant governor. He can run full bore for himself at the next regular election time.
Regarding your Sept. 12 article "Architects of Iraq war put on the defensive": Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is guilty of the "Goldilocks Doctrine," which is the idea that if you apply just the right military force - not too much, not too little - you'll get the exact result you want. It's a dangerous and naive experiment. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's experiment is equally dangerous. We had enough troops to win the war but clearly did not have enough to prevent looting and the continued breakdown of Iraq's infrastructure. Mr. Rumsfeld's experiment with a small force should come to an end. A larger force made possible with more international help might have stabilized Iraq by now and made the bill smaller in the long run. I'll take a smaller bill over a smaller military force.
Regarding David Francis's Sept. 15 column "New efforts surface to raise minimum wage": If the minimum wage is not increased, it will become obvious that our government is by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich.
The service industries have grown and profited mightily over the past few decades. Asking them to share their profits with their employees seems only fair. Concessions have to be made for the working poor, and concessions have to be made in general by our very rich. The standard of living for the poor and middle classes is slipping rapidly. The class warfare that may soon erupt will otherwise be totally justified.
We are all on this great ship together. The poor can no longer keep laboring with no sense that they may someday get ahead.
Charles A. Towsley Jr.
Regarding your Sept. 10 sidebar "Anti-Americanism: a bestseller": Is one "anti-American" because one disapproves of the actions of our government? You lump Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton together with journalists under that heading. Is Mr. Moore in this category because he gathers facts exposing greed and selfishness in our government and in corporate offices? I think not. It is supremely appropriate to criticize government and corporations in our country; that's what leads to change via elections. Should we be reduced to behaving like those in a banana republic - afraid to speak out because of fear of being branded "unpatriotic" or "anti-American"? Indeed, those who try to insert common sense and a climate of caring for people as opposed to institutions deserve our applause, not mean-spirited labels.
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.
Any letter accepted will appear in the print publication and on www.csmonitor.com
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 Letters .