Regarding your Feb. 3 editorial "Faster Cars Aren't Really Cool:" Yes, faster cars are cool. They always have been, and they always will be. Your statistics may be true, but they are irrelevant. There are so many factors that contribute to vehicle crashes and deaths, it's almost incomprehensible.
Although there are millions of cars on the road, the majority are sensible family sedans, and only a small number can exceed 130 mph. And most of those are owned by older men, among the safest drivers.
Those of us who care about the future of our country and the safety of our families, and enjoy the perceived sportiness of our automobiles are relishing this age of modern cars. Today's cars are more powerful and faster, true. They are also more fuel-efficient, emit fewer pollutants, and are equipped with accident-avoidance technology. This is the Golden Age of the automobile, and I thank government and industry for bringing it to us.
I am more concerned with maintaining the pressure on the auto industry to continue to improve fuel efficiency, lower emissions, and develop safer vehicles.
It's really a shame that automakers would rather focus on superficial "macho" details and hype instead of improving quality, reliability, fuel-efficiency, and safety in their vehicles. Where in this country can you safely go 175 mph (except on a speedway) anyway? On top of that, most drivers who purchase such extravagant fast cars don't understand the basic physics pertaining to driving at high speeds, which explains the epidemic of catastrophic high-speed accidents.
Regarding your March 3 article "Signs That Water Flowed on Mars": When compared with the problems we face in today's society, does it really matter that there might have been life on Mars? It's sort of interesting, yes, but the billions of dollars used in these space-research programs could have much more profound and immediate results if they were used here on Earth. That money could support welfare and education programs, or much more vigorous research into clean-energy technologies. The fact is that Earth is full of life. We should focus on sustaining and providing for it before we fly into space in search for other life.
Regarding your March 2 editorial "Voting For Gun Safety": As a gun owner, police officer, and National Rifle Association supporter, I have to admit you bring up a vital point. If 50 percent of the guns used in crimes are sold by 1 percent of the gun dealers, why not focus on laws already on the books to take cares of those dealers? I do take exception, however, to the notion that these dealers know they are selling to criminals. As a police officer, I meet many people on any given day and as hard as I try, I can't look at a person and tell what they're thinking. Hold the criminals liable for their own actions, not innocent, hard-working Americans.
Regarding your March 4 article "Veepstakes: Who will be No. 2?": I am surprised the article didn't mention Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as being well-qualified to become vice president. In my mind, Mrs. Clinton is the person for the No. 2 spot. She has an outstanding grasp of where this country should be headed. Furthermore, she is well-versed in foreign affairs and would be a great asset to our country in this role.
Joseph S. Hill
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the mail we receive, 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 print 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 .