Letters

The figure on your cover must not be able to see any real "Visions of Tomorrow" through his blue-lensed glasses [Oct. 11]. The attention given to sports, cars, gadgets, movies and TV in your reporting on the future caters to the affluent, self-centered, world-isolated and ignorant among us. Instead, we should be looking at nuclear-, biological- and chemical-weapons proliferation, AIDS, poverty, the environment and Islamist extremists.

RON MULLISEN Los Osos, Calif.

Your story on futurologist Peter Schwartz, who imagines future scenarios to help businesses plan for catastrophes, stated his belief that another terrorist attack is inevitable, no matter how much money is spent on homeland security. But the struggle against terrorism should also address the teaching of hate within radical Muslim groups. Forward thinkers must convince the free countries of the world that the future of the war on terrorism is psychological. It is a battleground we have not yet entered. All immigrants and children in public, private and religious schools should receive a continuous program of civics, tolerance and respect demanded by our democratic societies. This is not just a war on the ground but also a struggle over freedom of the mind.

STEPHEN VINEBERG Montreal

I was dissapointed that so much of your reporting on the future was devoted to gadgetry. Do we really need any more silly electronic gewgaws? The key to heading off the real crises the world will face in the future is to develop alternative energy sources.

DANIEL A. BROWN Leyden, Mass.

Healing Health Care

If Critical Condition, the new book by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele [Oct. 11], tells us anything about the health-care crisis, it's that anyone involved can make a buck off someone else's illness. The best way to address the nation's health-care woes is not to create another government agency but to change our illness-based system to a wellness-based system that would reward Americans for staying healthy. Every health-care professional must make a stronger effort to get our children, overstressed adults and seniors into the vast array of wellness, nutrition and exercise programs. While Barlett and Steele may have good intentions, their solution will do nothing to improve the health of this country.

ERIC DURAK Santa Barbara, Calif.

I agree with Barlett and Steele that the high cost of medical care is not because the caregivers are too expensive. We need to examine the concept of a single agency to provide coverage, collect fees and pay claims before the percentage of our GDP devoted to medical care in this country hobbles our economy even further. The comparison between Medicare's administrative costs and the much higher costs of private insurers was a telling revelation. The insurance lobbies must be faced down, or we will suffocate ourselves with astronomical costs for pencil pushing rather than actual health care.

MICHAEL DELEHANTY Euclid, Ohio

Barlett and Steele mentioned several times that a market-driven health-care system can never be efficient. But our health-care system is bureaucracy driven, because of the doctors and health-care companies that benefit from its overuse and inefficiency. Only when the person receiving care is the person responsible for payment will normal supply-and-demand forces come into play and costs be reduced. Insurance is not the answer. It is the problem.

WILLIAM STEPHENS Macomb, Ill.

Political Boss

Your article on Bruce Springsteen and the Vote for Change tour echoed the common sentiment that celebrities should steer clear of politics [Oct. 11]. But there is nothing wrong with activism, and Springsteen is better qualified than the pseudo intellectuals who rule conservative radio and television. Thirty years of touring the U.S. has given Springsteen a far better understanding of the true American experience and value system. How is his message any less patriotic than the flag-draped jingoism of the mainstream media?

JOHN FELLEMAN Palo Alto, Calif.

The rock-'n'-roll insurgency against the war in Iraq is one of many dark clouds for President Bush. Let's hope that the performances of Springsteen and others make his Administration realize that, unlike the awarding of contracts for rebuilding Iraq, there is competition for the nation's soul.

CHARLES ORLOSKI Taylor, Pa.

Trolling for Female Voters

Re "What Do Women Want?" [OCT. 11]: I almost fell off my chair when I read the rationale of a supposedly undecided woman who was leaning toward President Bush in this election. Your story said she was "inclined to adhere to the housekeeping principle, You make a mess, you clean it up." Is that a reason to keep Bush for four more years? If I messed up a major work project as badly as this President has botched Iraq, I would be summarily fired, and a new person would be brought in to clean up the mess I left behind.

DIANE MOREY Boxford, Mass.

Kerry has twice married fantastically rich women. One time is O.K., but twice? There is something about the seeming coincidence and good fortune that rings a false note. I have a hunch that bothers more women than many would care to admit.

RICHARD JACOBSON Marina del Rey, Calif.

About Those Husbands

This quote, attributed to a senior Republican official, was a hoot: "Kerry is the weirdo first husband you married in college when you were an art major. Bush is the solid second husband who saved you, helped you raise kids and taught you golf" [Oct. 11]. A more accurate description would be "Bush is the frat boy you married when you didn't know any better. Kerry is the solid second husband who can be counted on for his clear judgment and respect for his wife as an equal partner." Golf is fine, but there's plenty that women can teach their second spouses too.

PHOEBE MOYER Greenbrae, Calif.

Basing our voting decision on which candidate we would marry is ridiculous. If women wanted heartthrobs in the White House, a Harrison Ford-Tom Cruise ticket would have won years ago.

BETHANY WILLISTON Ann Arbor, Mich.

Recapping the Debates

I agree with columnist Joe Klein that John Kerry won the first debate on "the appearance of strength" [Oct. 11]. I was pleased with the Senator's demeanor and his direct and calm responses, in contrast to President Bush's smirks, scowls and useless sloganeering. Nothing Bush can say will ever convince me that he made a sincere, thoughtful and intellectual assessment of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

GLEN BROWN Naperville, Ill.

As an independent voter, I found the debates most instructive. For the first time, Kerry's foreign policy was crystal clear to me: tell the world to have a nice day, and then continue to cut any military funding program you can lay your hands on. Kerry as Commander in Chief? God help us.

ROBERT KATZ Cupertino, Calif.

Kerry said he would reserve the right to take unilateral action in defense of the U.S. but that any such action should pass a "global test" to be viewed as legitimate. That is hardly a new doctrine. Our Declaration of Independence refers to "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and says, "let Facts be submitted to a candid world." Republicans have been quick to rephrase Kerry's statements to imply that he would defer to the U.N. or get an O.K. from France. But even Bush submitted his rationale for the Iraq war to world opinion. Unfortunately, his reasons were more fantasy than fact.

BRUCE GARVER Murrieta, Calif.

Bush decried Kerry's characterization of the Iraq war as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," calling it the wrong message to send to our adversaries and our troops. Kerry's characterization sends precisely the right message. To our adversaries, it demonstrates one of the greatest strengths of a functional democracy: the freedom to dissent and to criticize one's government without fear. To our troops, it offers reassurance that Kerry fully recognizes what they are painfully aware of: the Iraq battle has gone awry, and a change of strategy, tactics and leadership is called for.

THAD L.D. REGULINSKI Tucson, Ariz.

Neither Bush nor Kerry (nor Cheney nor Edwards) has the qualities I would like to see in a national leader. These men are the dregs of what our antiquated two-party system, pushed to its extremes by party operatives, has left us: radical liberals and conservatives and no reasonable moderates to match the preferences of most Americans.

RICHARD KIEFER Golden, Colo.

The Viacom Voter

Re "10 Question For Sumner Redstone" [Oct. 4]: I was depressed to read why the chairman and CEO of media giant Viacom is voting Republican. Redstone stated, "I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one." How convenient to funnel all that your vote stands for into one neat line item. As a result, your vote becomes typically narrow. Pocketbook voting or tax-break accounting for Big Business rests on a stubborn belief in trickle-down economics. As a small-business owner, I vote for something more than my business. I vote for everyone.

JOAN MARY LAUBACHER Boulder, Colo.

The World Weighs In

Viewers of the debates could be forgiven for thinking that neither candidate can see the woods for the terrorists [Oct. 11]. No terrorist attack, no matter how dire, could pose the threat to all human life that already exists, gets worse by the day and is ignored by politicians. Yet the environment has scarcely featured in the U.S. presidential election. Terrorists make better headlines than the removal of toxins from the environment to secure the health of future generations.

CATHIE HARRISON Nelson, New Zealand

The focus on looks has gone too far in this TV age. Candidates are marketed like laundry detergents or automobiles. The U.S. President is so powerful that he should be chosen in a more dispassionate way, say by the Congress. What would happen to the U.S. if a muscle builder from California moved into the White House?

LENNART DAHLBECK Stockholm

Lately President Bush has been Asser Ting that the Iraq invasion was justified because freedom and liberty will be welcomed in that part of the world. It seems that the Administration changes its reason for going to war to shoo away whatever bad situation there is on the ground at that particular moment. Bush's flip-flops show how dangerous he is and how indifferent he is to the loss of thousands of soldiers' and civilians' lives.

NITIN AHUJA Noida, India

I am not sure if it's in the Democrats' best interests to win the November election. The U.S. economy is running an unsustainable deficit, making tax increases inevitable. The conflict in Iraq is not going America's way. The U.S. may have won the war, but it is losing the peace. It cannot be long before withdrawal of U.S. forces becomes the only option. If Kerry presides over those events, the Democrats will have a very unhappy four years.

STEPHEN HANN Leicester, England

Only time will tell if the pre-emptive war in Iraq was the right move to make in the war on terrorism. Certainly nobody on either side of the political fence can truthfully answer that question now.

PHIL ROSS Melbourne

I hope with all my heart that John Kerry wins the election. It's not that I think he would be a wizard who could put everything right. Conditions would probably remain pretty much the same, but I think Kerry would be able to govern more gracefully than President Bush has. If Americans give Bush another four years, the U.S. will have the President it deserves. If disenchanted citizens fail to vote for change, they will have absolutely no right to complain.

CHRISTY COX Santander, Spain

Death in Darfur

What is happening in Sudan is ethnic cleansing, pure and simple [Oct. 4]. The government-backed Janjaweed Arab militia is committing genocide against non-Arab Muslims. Is the world waiting for Darfur to degenerate into another Bosnia or Rwanda? I am surprised by the evasive tactics of the Bush Administration and its European counterparts. After its blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. does not want to be seen as antagonizing another Muslim state, and the E.U. is foot dragging, probably out of fear of reprisal attacks by Islamist militants. The defenseless people of Darfur need the intervention of the free world before they are exterminated. We must collectively rise up and protect those people, whose only "sin" is that they are black.

PAUL ONORIODE OTERI Sapele, Nigeria

Before TIME's report on the situation in Sudan, I had no idea that the region had become so tense and that 50,000 lives had been lost in the crisis. Your story convinced me that African nations still need regular baby sitting if they are ever going to measure up to global expectations of internal peace and responsible political leadership.

PELU AWOFESO Lagos

Any normal person must be touched by the images of the suffering of the Darfurians in western Sudan. But the pain and despair of the refugees can never be understood by anyone thousands of miles away reading about their hardships. The abject situation in Darfur raises several questions. How can the West, which so successfully championed the rights of Bosnians and Kosovars not long ago, ignore the plight of the Darfurians? Did the world not learn a lesson from the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda? What is the point of arguing over the definition of genocide while Darfurians are dying? The refugees cannot cry anymore, for there are no tears left for them to shed. The only thing they can do is to wait for their day of reckoning, to leave this cruel and inexplicably harsh world.

TAN BOON TEE Singapore

No Surrender

"The Struggle Within Islam" described the battle between moderate and fundamentalist Muslims [Sept. 13]. I dream of the day when all the religious groups of the world may coexist peacefully, even though that may be several generations away. Human nature and history tell us that as long as there are adults teaching children that their religion or philosophy of life is unique--and that any other should be destroyed--violence will be perpetuated. The best tool to change the thinking of those radical groups is dialogue. If that fails and the groups resort to violence to impose their views, then drastic actions will be necessary. The war in Afghanistan and the fight against the Basque terrorist group ETA in Spain are justified. Once strong measures have been taken, it is essential to be firm and not surrender to terrorists' blackmail. The withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq was a serious mistake. Spain's new government should more carefully analyze the long-term effects of its decisions before acting.

ANGELO GONZALEZ Vigo, Spain