On ‘A Dark and Stormy Life’: “Aw, come on! Charles Schulz was vindictive. But the story of his exchange with ‘For Better or for Worse’ comic-strip creator Lynn Johnston about having Snoopy hit by a car was perfect evidence of his unique sense of humor.” Bill Bailey, Rolling Meadows, Ill.
After reading your ct. 22 cover story, “Married to Iraq,” I felt the need to thank NEWSWEEK for running the article on these rare couples—Americans and Iraqis—who found happiness during the Iraq War. The American public, for the most part, sees only the negative aspects of the war: Iraqis who are put out of their homes or the number of soldiers and civilians who die on a weekly basis. You showed that amid all the death and destruction, in the most terrible of situations, something as pure and decent as love can grow and flourish. Yes, compared with previous wars the marriage rate to foreign spouses is relatively low, but the fact that they are occurring in such an unstable area is nothing short of amazing. Brett Allred Via Internet
“Married to Iraq” came as quite a surprise. The way women are suppressed in Iraq, I would never think that a relationship between an American and Iraqi citizen could take place. Apparently, neither religion nor politics can stop the power of love. This was a heartwarming story about Iraq, instead of a story of gloom. Paul Dale Roberts Elk Grove, Calif.
In 2003 the justification for the Iraq War was not “to liberate” the Iraqi people from a dictator, as you stated. It was to find weapons of mass destruction. That was the “original mission” of this war. A great many dictators in the world deserve to be overthrown, and Saddam was one of them, but it is not what we were told was the justification for going to war. Jay Peterson Kansas City, Mo.
Regardless of one’s position on global warming, everyone should be required to read George Will’s Oct. 22 essay, “An Inconvenient Price.” Will doesn’t challenge global warming itself, but does address several vital questions and issues that the media frenzy routinely ignores. I’ve yet to see a cogent case made that it’s physically, much less economically, possible for humankind to change the global thermostat. Most important, there is no reliable scientific assurance that all our costly efforts would actually result in measurable change. Of course America, along with the developed world, needs to wean itself off oil and curb its gluttonous waste of natural resources. That we can and should do, but it is a far cry from attempting to reverse global warming (or cooling, which will inexorably follow). George Will will be castigated by many for daring to ask these inconvenient questions, but they cannot be ignored. Ray Robins Seattle, Wash.
George Will brings a “cool” head to the manic debate over global warming. Certainly we can all be better stewards of this planet. But really, how much can mere humans do to alter the periodic warming and cooling that has occurred over eons? The so-called scientific consensus notwithstanding, are we really the cause of global warming? And I’m even more skeptical that our scratching around on the surface of the Earth can do anything of significance to affect climate change. As Will suggests, let’s refocus our considerable resources to looming dangers we can do something about, such as AIDS, polluted drinking water and grinding hunger—to name a few. Mark Quade La Crosse, Wis.
In “An Inconvenient Price” George Will says that the costs of fighting global warming far outweigh the benefits. If the reasoning that money can be better spent in other areas would be applied to every endeavor, nothing palpable would ever be done about anything. The overwhelming evidence garnered by most of the world’s scientists and environmentalists supports an opposite conclusion; the benefits of fighting global warming far outweigh the costs. Is Will falling into the Republican trap? Never let reality get in the way of an opinion. John Strausser Coal Township, Pa.
I (loudly) applaud Kathleen Deveny’s article “Your Child Was Out of Line” (MODERN FAMILY, Oct. 22). I am a stay-at-home mom of a 3-year-old boy and regularly find myself in situations?with other people’s children misbehaving or being rude. I have also bitten my tongue despite feeling?I should say something, and have later regretted it. The saying “It takes a village to raise a child” applies here. It is our job as adults to help direct children and essentially raise decent human beings. I am not a perfect parent, and my son needs direction and coaching, and not just from me. But standing by and watching wrongdoing without commenting is passively saying it’s OK. That certainly didn’t happen when I was a kid. Adults were the ultimate authority, and I respected them. Now it seems that we have a group of children who think they can do no wrong and don’t have to listen to anyone. I don’t want that world for my child. So, by all means, please tell my son not to throw sand, or tell the little girl who is cussing that it’s not appropriate. Because I’ve resolved that I am going to. They will be better for it and so will your child. Allison Mitchell Buda, Texas
I’ve been a special-education teacher, a clinical therapist and a social worker—and I’m a parent. I love, admire and respect children. Whose job is it to raise kind, thoughtful, responsible people? All of ours. Hard as it is, our collective job as citizens, if we care, is to help foster good people—people who will take responsibility and move empathy forward. If we don’t all “get on the train,” the tracks will fail. Uncomfortable as it may be, we must choose to take a stand when we see wrongdoing; when we do not correct, challenge or confront our own and other people’s children, as parents, we have no right to wonder why kids go so far astray. It may not be politically correct to say so these days, but we actually do get by with a little help from our friends. Who among us can say that’s not true? Kristen Damberg St. Paul, Minn.
Thank you for addressing the unique needs of young families with a seriously ill parent (“What’s Chemo, Mommy?” Oct. 22). I am a 38-year-old mother of two children, ages 8 and 6. Every day my children witness my struggle to fight systemic sclerosis, a rare autoimmune disease that is systematically destroying my lungs. While my children have never known what it is to have a healthy mother, I suspect that they realize that their lives are far from normal. The upside of serious chronic illness is that it has the extraordinary potential to transform one’s outlook on life. As a sick mother, I have made every effort to teach my children to be independent and self-reliant because I know that I will not always be here to do things for them. When they express their fears about my dying, I tell them that I am doing everything in my power to live, but that I will always be with them, in their hearts and their memories, long after I have died. When they ask who will be their mother, I tell them that while I am their mother, there will always be women (and men!) available to mother them throughout their lives. And knowing that they will someday want a firsthand account of their early years, I have kept journals for them since the first positive-pregnancy tests. While I know that all these things cannot compensate for the premature death of a parent, I hope that it will make their journeys easier. And when I give in to self-pity I remind myself that what is such a rare event in the United States is common throughout the world, and I once again feel blessed that I am, for now, alive. Michelle l. Mayer Chapel Hill, N.C.
In “Building a Hurricane-Proof House” (Periscope, Oct. 22), I wonder why no one is proposing the geodesic dome? Buckminster Fuller’s design was the U.S. pavilion (Biosphere) at Expo ‘67 in Montreal, Canada. As its description said, “The United States exhibit, entitled Creative America, is designed to illustrate technological and esthetic inventiveness in the U.S.A.” That was 40 years ago. The geodesic dome would be the perfect architectural structure for withstanding severe weather conditions. We built our own dome home in 1974 and loved living in the round. It’s time to think outside the box. Judi Diggs Lake Hiawatha, N.J.
When I was in college in the ’60s, I decided to stop reading the Charlie Brown comic strip because the girls in it made me uncomfortable and resentful, while each one of the male characters (including Snoopy and, later, Woodstock) was endearing and sympathetic (“A Dark and Stormy Life,” Oct. 22). Lucy, Sally and Peppermint Patty were bossy, self-centered and even cruel. To my knowledge, the little red-haired girl was the only one who was treated fairly, and she barely made an appearance through the years, except in Charlie Brown’s imagination. Now, after reading the editorial page daily, I faithfully read five or six comic strips, including “Peanuts” reprints, for balance. Judging from his work, Charles Schulz did not like women, and judging from your review, I would not have enjoyed his company, but I do like Charlie Brown and his (male) friends very much. Martha-Allison Blewer Dallas, Texas
I’m glad Paris Hilton is trying to change her life (“Ms. Hilton Gets Serious. Please Stop Laughing,” Oct. 22). But a five-day photo op in Rwanda? Give me a break. How about two years in the Peace Corps, as my friends and I did? Why not pick somewhere so desolate that even the paparazzi won’t follow you? Then come back a truly changed person. Peyam Barghassa Raleigh, N.C.
In the Oct. 29 story “Haditha Unraveled,” we wrongly identified suspects in the case as members of the Marines’ Lima Company. They are from the Kilo Company, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment. NEWSWEEK regrets the error.
