The May 17 article "In un-P.C. Brazil, a list of 96 offensive terms causes offense" states erroneously that American minorities fought some kind of protracted battle over which terms can denote race and ethnicity. That is not true. Political correctness emanated from the university toward the society at large, not the other way around. As for which part of that society absorbed it the most, one would not count minority communities at the top of the list.
The P.C. movement began as a white, left-wing movement. It is based on the premise that the revolution must go on: It is not enough to achieve legal equality, civil rights, and civil liberties; you must transform people's hearts and minds. But in reality, the P.C. movement is a left-wing movement because its emphasis on the alleged "informal" and "insidious" - and, by implication, more powerful - societal "structures" of racism, is actually a view that belittles the achievements of the civil rights movement itself.
The June 1 article "Russia sets sights on 'subversion' " is the most uplifting piece I have read in your newspaper for quite a long time, particularly as it deals with the media. There are many of us who feel the action being undertaken by the Russian government in curbing the media's reporting of incorrect news is precisely what is at the heart of this problem.
The globalization of the media, in which powerful interests control the "words" through electronic networks and wire services, has caused more than a little damage to the world communities, especially those who are defenseless against these violations. Holding the publishers and editors accountable for any inaccuracies (whether they be domestic- or foreign-initiated) as the Russian government has proposed, is the only way to go. At least that would bring some semblance of integrity into the process. I hope the American legislature has the courage to follow suit.
F. Donnie Forde
Regarding your May 25 article "Teens: It's a diary. Adults: It's unsafe": I was disappointed to see the article only grazed the surface of the greatest threat in teen blogging. Upon investigation into my child's blogging activities, I was shocked by the subject matter of many of the blog sites.
Beyond the profanity and vulgarity, the content concerned me because I wonder how much is really true. I can't help wondering how many insecure teens are reading what their peers are supposedly doing and thinking they must be missing out if they are not participating in these activities.
I am also struck by the naiveté of the teens who think parents are snooping while reading blog sites. I view this activity much more differently than I would reading my child's private journal. A blog is in a public forum, and therefore not private.
I can't help wondering how many parents out there really know what their kids are saying or how they are portraying themselves on these sites. My guess is they would be shocked.
South Windsor, Conn.
As a homeschooled 15-year-old, I feel that parents need to explain their concerns about their teens' online journals with an emphasis on compromising rather than setting limits that impinge upon a teen's right to self-expression.
By talking to teens about their concerns, parents help them deal with safety issues. The Internet is an uncertain place, but when teens and parents approach it together, it doesn't have to be a dangerous one.
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of 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.