The Real ID Act is a boon to Americans' safety
Regarding the Feb. 9 article, "Resistance rises to US law that requires stricter ID standards": The 2005 Real ID Act is a great idea, not a problem. Encrypting driver's licenses is also a great idea. I am constantly amazed at how people object to simple practical mechanisms that are meant to protect us from those who want to harm us.
Gone are the days when criminals can just change their names and disappear, only to reappear on the opposite side of the country with new lives. Most of my friends are more concerned that foreigners will attack us than that our government will use the information it keeps on us against us.
Regarding the Feb. 13 article, "Time to begin adapting to climate change": When the hidebound World Bank begins to hire people to assist countries in adapting to global warming, we can be sure that the problem is quite serious, for in the past the bank has been notoriously slow in waking up to the problems of the globalization of trade. Climate change is a more serious kind of globalization. It affects the whole planet. The bank needs to stop loans for projects that will increase global warming, even if this means that the economies of industrialized nations will slow.
Regarding your Feb. 12 editorial, "Iraqis on the run": Whether fleeing violence stemming from sectarian civil war or the violence inflicted by generations of economic conquest, refugees the world over are convenient scapegoats. Immigrants throughout history, whether they arrive in Amman, Jordan, or Amarillo, Texas, have been habitually blamed for skyrocketing healthcare and social-service costs, poor schools, weak economies, low wages, and ongoing community instability.
So governments predictably build walls, militarize borders, restrict visas, and do all they can to protect their homeland from these invaders. But immigrants still come. This migration of the desperate continues, and will continue until the safety, social, and economic disparities that separate peoples are adequately addressed. Until this is done, we do indeed have a moral "obligation to do everything possible to mitigate this human, and political challenge."
Your Feb. 9 editorial, "Snack-ad attack" gives me a small glimmer of hope that the deep love most parents and grandparents have for their children and grandchildren will be voiced until companies respond with appropriate changes. I appreciate the first step Masterfoods is making and encourage the company to go further. We Americans need to voice our deep concern by taking action.
When raising our children, we simply turned the TV off when a commercial or program tried to influence us to do or think something that was contrary to what we knew was true. We also walked out of movies, did not purchase clothing that promoted a company, and exercised our responsibility as parents in guiding our children on matters ranging from what an appropriate portion of food was to why we don't laugh at smut. I am constantly turning off commercials to avoid their influence. How can this country allow greed to overcome responsibility for our future, our children?
Paulette J. Watkins
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 our website, 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.