To the editor:
Regarding the editorial "Democrats and Iraq," the Times writes that "the Democrats' role in changing things will be hortatory."
Congress has more power and responsibility than the Times gives it credit for. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to appropriate funds. By refusing to pay for the war, Congress could end it in 2007. If it continues to pay for the war, Congress will share in the responsibility for the resulting American and Iraqi deaths.
It's time to cut (our losses) and run (George Bush out of office).
To the editor:
Despite the overwhelming Democratic Party victory in the statewide elections ("Clinton and Democrats Sweep Races in New York", 11/8/2006), Republicans retained control of the NY State Senate. How did this happen?
For a generation, the Democrats have controlled the Assembly and the Republicans have controlled the Senate. Senatorial districts are larger than Assembly districts, and unlike U.S. Senators, each State Senator represents approximately the same number of people.
The power of incumbency is a partial explanation: turnover in the state legislature is very low. But during the last 30 years, the faces have changed. It appears that the composition of the State Senate does not reflect the changing sentiments of New Yorkers.
To the editor:
Re: "U.S. Military Announces Deaths of 10 Soldiers" (10/18/2006), the N.Y. Times repeats the U.S. military's two theories as to why more Americans are dying in Iraw in October: Ramadan, and the more aggressive patrolling of Baghdad.
Here's an alternative theory that I have not seen in print: there's an election coming up, an American election, in which the Iraq War is a hot issue. Is it possible that the Iraqi insurgents know about this election because, perhaps, they read the New York Times?
To the editor:
Re: "From Group of 8, Energy Focus Is on Oil" (July 17, 2006), the leaders of the world's most powerful countries seem to think that they can defy the laws of nature. If demand for oil and gas increases 50% by 2030, supply will not meet demand.
There is a finite amount of oil, gas and coal in the ground and under the sea. According to M. King Hubbert's widely accepted theory of peak oil, once half of the reserves of a fossil fuel have been extracted, production declines. The world's oil production will soon peak if it has not already. The peak for natural gas will occur a few years later. There is a lot more coal, but I can't run my car on it and I would rather not heat my house with it.
To the editor:
Re: "Moussaoui Given Life Term by Jury", I want to thank the jury for its thoughtful decision. Sadly, revenge killing is a tradition in many parts of the world. Had we killed Mr. Moussaoui in revenge for the deaths on 9/11, it would probably have caused further killings to avenge his death. We are all a little safer now.
To the editor:
Re: "Silence Broken as Cheney Points Only to Himself," if I participated in a sport in which I accidentally shot a friend, I would give up that sport immediately. Mr. Vice President, please stop hunting.
This episode could have been much more serious. Imagine what would have happened if Mr. Whittington had shot Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney's heart has been weakened by several heart attacks, and a piece of bird shot that migrated to his heart could have killed him.
Mr. Cheney was elected Vice President and has a responsibility to all Americans to serve out his term. He should be more cautious than most of us. If he really must continue hunting, he should wait until 2009.
To the editor:
According to the December 1 article "Gaining Control in Iraq, and Regaining Support at Home," the President's political advisers believe they can retain control of Congress despite declining support from voters because "there will only be 35 to 40 competitive seats in the House of Representives" in the 2006 elections. Democrats do not dispute this analysis.
The House has 435 members, and fewer than 10% of them will face competitive elections. We can predict the outcome of most races because elected officials (of both parties) design the districts to be either lopsidedly Repbulican or Democratic. I, and more than 90% of America's voters, live in such districts. Our votes don't matter.
Two reforms can correct this injustice: 1) creating non-partisan panels to draw district lines, or 2) electing multiple Congresspeople from larger districts by proportional representation.
To the editor:
According to the article "Weiner Concedes Race for Mayor to Avert Runoff," N.Y. City is about to waste millions of dollars holding an uncontested runoff election for mayor.
There is a better way, and it's called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). In IRV elections, the voters rank the candidates and, after several rounds of counting votes, the candidate supported by more than 50% of the voters wins. With a single election IRV saves money, but more importantly, it allows voters to express their preferences more precisely than just voting for a single candidate. For example, in an IRV election I could say that Weiner is my first choice, but if he doesn't get enough support, then Ferrer is my second choice, and if he also doesn't get enough support, then Miller is my third choise, and so on.
San Francisco uses IRV.
To the editor:
The article "On Oil Supply, Opinion Aren't Scarce" mentions that a new oil refinery has not been built in the United States in 30 years. Surprisingly, the lack of new refineries is not cited as strong evidence that oil production is peaking.
Refineries are costly to build. Before constructing one, a company must be sure that there will be enough crude oil to supply it for decades.
It's clear that the demand for refined products is increasing, yet no one is rushing to build refineries. Why not? Could it be that oil companies, who are in the best position to forecast future production, have no faith that there will be enough crude? For those who believe that high prices will cause oil production to increase, I challenge you to talk with your dollars by building a new American refinery.
To the editor:
According to "China and the U.S. Embark on a Perilous Trip," the Bush administration and most Wall Street brokers believe that the twin U.S. deficits (trade and current account) can be reduced gradually with little risk to the world's financial system. The article quotes economists who explain that quick and painful exchange rate changes are not in China's or Japan's interest. They appeal to one of the financial system's key emotions: greed. They ignore greed's twin: fear.
Politicians and brokers are hardly disinterested observers. The winners of future elections, and the profits of financial firms, depend on avoiding a financial panic. Despite this eternal truth, financial panics have occurred in the past.
Personally, I am afraid to hold dollars. What scares me most is the unwillingness of our political and financial leaders to admit that the U.S. has a serious debt problem.
To the editor:
Re: "France to Be Site of World's First Nuclear Fusion Reactor." I remember as a child seeing a demonstration of nuclear fusion at the 1964 World's Fair in Flushing Meadow Park. Fusion, we were told, would be the energy source of the future.
Forty years later scientists are still building expensive machines to demonstrate fusion. But now that the world's production of oil is peaking and will soon decline, it is urgent that we develop new energy sources.
A fusion breakthrough is more likely to be found by a lone university researcher than by an international consortium. The billions to build the demonstration reactor would be better spent improving and promoting wind power, solar power, and energy conservation.
To the editor:
Re: "OPEC Increases Quotas by the Expected Number" (Market Place, June 16) blames a lack of refining capacity for the high price of oil products. In fact, the newest U.S. refinery was built in the 1970s. There are several good reasons for this.
First, most petroleum geologists expect that the production of crude oil will soon peak worldwide and then decline. If a new refinery is built in the United States, where will its key raw material come from?
Second, the places where it makes sense to build new refineries are the oil exporting countries that can guarantee supplies of crude oil. With such refineries, they could sell higher-margin refined products to energy consumers. However, new refineries abroad will mean that less crude for U.S. refineries.
Energy consumers must recognize that worldwide oil production will soon decline, and that now is the time to invest in renewable alternatives.
To the editor:
In the article "Rumsfeld Issues a Sharp Rebuke to China On Arms" (June 4, 2005), the Times quotes Mr. Rumsfeld asking the following question about China's military: "Since no nation threatens China, one wonders why this growing investment?"
Let me suggest a possible answer. Later in this decade, after the world's oil production peaks, the demand for oil will outstrip supply. The world's two largest consumers will be competing for a limited resource. One way to compete will be economically by bidding up the price, and another way will be militarily by taking control of the Middle East oil fields. It is unlikely that China could occupy the Middle East, but a strong Chinese army and navy would discourage any other nation considering such a plan.
To the editor:
"Filibuster Fight Nears Showdown" (news article, May 8) does not fully explore the benefits and disadvantages of requiring more than a simple majority of votes to pass legislation.
A majority significantly larger than 50% is called a super-majority. Requiring a super-majority to pass a motion or a law can permit a minority to thwart the will of a slim majority. But requiring a super-majority can also force the majority to negotiate with the dissidents to produce better legislation. It also prevents a slim majority from forcing divisive measures down everyone else's throats. Robert's Rules of Order suggests that a simple majority be required to pass motions, but that a super-majority should be required to change the rules of an organization.
To the editor:
"Gunmen Kill Iraqi Lawmaker in Baghdad" (new article, April 27) states that the "failure to form a government three months after elections has allowed violence to thrive." To support this conclusion, the article cites unnamed "Iraqi officials." According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the increased violence "has coincided" with the political impasse.
When two events coincide, it does not demonstrate cause and effect. There are other reasonable explanations for the increased violence in Iraq, such as a change in the insurgents' strategy. A good fighter does not go all out all the time; a good fighter paces himself both to conserve energy and to lull the opponent into complacency.
To the editor:
Re: "G.M.'s Chief Takes Control of North American Auto Operations" (April 4, 2005), General Motors and many other American manufacturers are in deep trouble largely because their health care costs are much higher than their foreign competitors' costs. In most other industrial nations, health care is paid for by the government and is significantly less expensive than in the United States.
Our current health care system favors the medical industry over all other industries. For the sake of America's non-medical companies, Congress should reconsider a single-payer national health program.
Click here to see the letter as published in the NY Times.
To the editor:
The article "OPEC, in Bid to End Oil Rally, Will Boost Output" admits that the worldwide demand for oil is threatening to outstrip supply. Yet I hear no one in a position of authority is calling for conservation: neither the consumers nor the producers.
Conservation alone will not solve the coming energy shortage, but it could buy the world some time to develop additional sources of energy. In addition to a shortage of energy, we also suffer from a shortage of leadership. The only U.S. plan on the table to develop a major new energy source is the proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But this is not a sustainable energy source; even if such drilling is wildly successful, it will hardly make a difference on a global scale.
To the editor:
President Bush's State of the Union address focused on solving a long-term "insolvency" in Social Security. However, many years before the Social Security system begins having trouble paying benefits, the United States will face energy insolvency. When worldwide oil production peaks later this decade, the price of energy will soar confounding all of the current long-term economic forecasts.
Social Security will then really be in trouble, but it will be the least of our problems. We need to start preparing now for the day when petroleum products are no longer plentiful compared to demand--that day is coming soon. Neither President Bush nor his Democratic Party opponents are even talking about this much more immediate crisis.
To the editor:
Re: "How Election Day Polls Were Conducted" (11/2/2004), it is highly improbable that the differences between the exit polls and the actual election results were caused by chance. I can only think of two other explanations: 1) methodological errors in the exit polls, and 2) election fraud.
To rule out election fraud, it is important that the experts closely examine the methodology of the exit polls and describe whatever deficiencies they find to a skeptical public.
To the editor:
Re: "Urging Swift Action, Panel Warns Deadlier Attacks Are Likely", Thomas Kean, Chairman of the National Commision on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, says an attack "of even greater magnitude" than the attacks of 9/11 "are possible, even probable." Yet the Commission's report states, "We believe we are safer today, but we are not safe."
These two statements contradict one another. I feel less safe today because the policies of my government regarding the Middle East and regarding renewable sources of energy have not changed.
To the editor:
Re: "G.M. to Spend Over $3 Billion to Expand in China" (June 8). Supply and demand for oil are precariously balanced this year. There is little spare capacity to increase oil production. The extra capacity that exists is for Middle Eastern heavier crude oil, good for making diesel and heating oil, not gasoline.
Suppose that G.M. succeeds in building and selling a lot of additional cars in China in future years. How will they be fueled?
To the editor:
The article "Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword" (May 25, 2004) did not mention the simplest way to eliminate the danger of nuclear weapons proliferating from civilian nuclear power plants: shutting down the civilian nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power used to generate electricity can never be economical because of the astronomical costs of storing the high-level nuclear waste. The only way to justify nuclear power is to ignore this waste which will remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Our children, our children's children, and our children's children's children's children's children, will be paying to guard this waste.
The most economical long-term solution is to stop creating more high-level radioactive waste by shutting down the existing nuclear power plants. Reducing the danger that more nations will get nuclear weapons will be a nice side benefit.
To the editor:
Re: "And That's 20: Albany Budget is Late Again", it's clear that the process of governing the state of New York needs to change. New Yorkers should consider Nebraska's government which has only one legislative body, called the Unicameral, instead of an Assembly and a Senate.
The rationale for the U.S. Senate is that it gives smaller states a greater voice than in the House of Representatives. For example, Wyoming and New York each have two U.S. Senators, but New York has 29 members of the House compared to one for Wyoming.
The NY State Senate serves no such purpose. In New York, each State Senator represents the same number of constituents.
The New York State Senate is superfluous. Why do we need it? New York could save some money by employing fewer politicians and create a simpler process for passing legislation and budgets by adopting a unicameral legislature.
To the editor:
Re: "Bush, Kerry Trade Charges on Gas Prices." John Kerry wants to pressure OPEC countries to pump more oil and to stop purchasing oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. George Bush criticizes Kerry for wanting to raise gasoline taxes.
But neither candidate acknowledges that there is no shortage of oil, but that hedge funds have added several dollars per barrel to its price by speculating that the price will rise further.
Governments sometimes intervene in currency markets when they believe that speculation has gone too far. Why can't the U.S. government intervene in the oil markets and teach the hedge funds a little lesson?
To the editor:
Re: "The President Makes Danger His Campaign Theme" discussed President Bush's supposed advantage over the Democrats in national security matters.
But Bush has not addressed America's core security problem: our dependence on foreign sources of energy. If our economy did not need the constant flow of oil tankers from the Middle East, we wouldn't be fighting wars on the other side of the globe. We wouldn't have such a severe terrorist problem. And we wouldn't need to put our bravest young men and women in harm's way.
Our dependence on foreign sources of energy has developed over decades. It has worsened under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. A major, international effort is required to develop economical alternatives to fossil fuels.
I believe that Bush is weak on national security because he has not addressed America's core problem. His opponents would do well to point this out.
To the editor:
Re: "The Things They Carry", I am disappointed that this long article on national security failed to mention America's greatest security weakness: our addiction to Middle East oil.
The oil embargo of 1973 created a serious recession, but today we are far more dependent on imported oil. Why did we care when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Saudi oil was threatened. Why is Al Qaeda trying to destabilize the Saudi monarchy? To cut off our supply of Saudi oil.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats talk about energy security because none of them has a plan to save our economy if the supertankers filled with Arab oil stop arriving at American ports. Instead of putting our young people in harm's way, we need an energy policy that reduces, and eventually eliminates, our dependence on foreign suppliers.
To the editor:
The recent article entitled "New Afghan Constitution Juggles Koran and Democracy" did not say whether Afghanistan's new legislature will be elected in winner-take-all elections or by proportional representation.
This is a critical detail. In a proportional system, each party would get seats in the legislature in proportion to the number of votes it receives, so even a small minority group could elect someone. Winner-take-all elections, that require each legislator to get more than 50% of the votes in his or her district, could leave minorities unrepresented. It is crucial for all the ethnic minorities in Afghanistan to believe that they can elect legislators.
The U.S. system of winner-take-all elections encourages the dominance of two centrist political parties and discourages voters who have a different outlook. In democracies that use proportional representation, minority voters are more likely to be able to elect someone who shares their viewpoints.
To the editor:
I bought a Toyota Prius gas-electric car in September and I like it very much (see "Hybrid Cars Are Attracting a Broad Range of Americans", 12/11/2002). My primary goal is not to deprive Saudi Arabia of revenue, but instead to help the world make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.
Although I feel good about my purchase, it is not enough. Governments around the world should fund research into alternative sources of energy. Government-sponsored research programs created radar, semiconductors and the Internet. Why not affordable, renewable energy?
To the editor:
I oppose a U.S. military strike on Iraq. We have not been attacked by Iraq--to attack it now would make us the aggressor.
The conflicts in the Middle East are not worth risking the lives of America's young people. We should spend our money on technology that will end our dependence on Middle East oil instead of spending it on military muscle to protect foreign oil fields.
To the editor:
The September 27 article entitled "Giuliani Explores Extending His Term by 2 or 3 Months" begins: "Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was exploring the possibility yesterday of getting the three mayoral candidates to agree to an extension of his term for two or three months ...." Later, the article identifies "the three mayoral candidates" as Michael Bloomberg, Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer.
It is not accurate to write "the three mayoral candidates." I plan to vote for Julia Willebrand for mayor. Ms. Willebrand is the likely winner of the Green Party's primary, held on September 25. If she has indeed won the primary, her name will appear on the ballot in November alongside Mr. Bloomberg's and Mr. Green's or Mr. Ferrer's.
Julia Willebrand differs on many issues from "the three mayoral candidates." The NY Times should inform its readers about Ms. Willebrand's positions.