A Sobering Dose of Reality
Thank you for a well-written, informative and accurate account of the potential use of the smallpox virus as a biological weapon (“The Plan to Fight Smallpox,” Oct. 14). Scientists and elected leaders have clearly created a realistic response plan, especially given the enormous constraints of time, safety and resources. One of our nation’s next steps should be to alert its 280 million citizens to comprehensive information about the symptoms of bioterror illness and the responses that would help facilitate effective medical care. Without public awareness about–and inclusion in–the preparation efforts, we will likely see the same chaos and panic that accompanied last year’s anthrax attacks, should another bioweapon be used. Jonathan Weinstein, M.D. Hudson Valley Poison Center and Center for Terrorism Education Sleepy Hollow, N.Y.
Smallpox is a nightmare whose greatest threat is the creation of panic in the United States, yet it would kill more people in Muslim countries. Smallpox respects no borders or nationality. Any nation or terrorists using smallpox as a weapon know the disease spreads. So they would have to have vaccines and a public-health system in place for their supporters or citizens. First World nations have the resources to respond to the disease and the capacity to manufacture vaccines. Second and Third World nations would be left nearly defenseless. Where would Iraq or, for that matter, most nations in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia obtain sufficient stocks of vaccine or learn prevention techniques necessary to avoid catastrophe? Kirk Knight Alameda, Calif.
NEWSWEEK’s cover story on the emergency plan to inoculate every American against smallpox underscores the importance of maintaining a secure vaccine supply worldwide. It bears mentioning that nearly every vaccine–not just those against smallpox and other biological threats–is in short supply. The scarcity of even routine childhood immunizations is being addressed by more than 70 of the world’s poorest countries and by the Vaccine Fund, launched in 1999 by a contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to provide financing for immunization services and for the purchase of new and underutilized vaccines. The Vaccine Fund is a partner of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, an international coalition that works with the pharmaceutical industry to guarantee a sufficient supply of vaccines. As your article correctly points out, the threat of a smallpox outbreak is a global concern. Israel is beginning to vaccinate its frontline health-care workers, and Britain and Australia are purchasing vaccines. No doubt other countries will follow suit. It is my hope that by helping poor countries establish stable infrastructures to distribute basic vaccines to children, GAVI and the Vaccine Fund will have better prepared these countries to protect their citizens should such a threat become a horrible reality. Jim Jones, Executive Vice President The Vaccine Fund Washington, D.C.
It’s certainly necessary to inoculate health-care workers, but priority should also be given to those who maintain the infrastructure. Without pilots, truckdrivers, police, telephones, water and electricity, health care would be slowed or even stopped. As your article states, the odds of widespread vaccination damage are less than what we routinely face. Not vaccinating the population appears much more risky. Art Pozner Mercer Island, Wash.
The Centers for Disease Control’s public-response hot line offers clear, concise, up-to-date information on anthrax, smallpox, botulism and other biological and chemical agents. Service is available for English and Spanish speakers and for the deaf and hard of hearing. The toll-free number is 888-246-2675. Kathy Ford American Social Health Association Research Triangle Park, N.C.
The Measure of a Woman?
It is a sad commentary on our society when an organization that discriminates against the majority of women in the United States on the basis of physical appearance is, in the words of Kate Shindle, “the nation’s largest provider of women’s scholarships” (“Miss America: More Than a Beauty Queen?” My Turn, Oct. 14). Having worked in higher education for 30 years, I can assure you that there are plenty of bright, articulate women who would eagerly compete for some of the scholarship money provided by the Miss America Pageant if part of the competition did not require them to walk half naked across a stage in front of several million people. Jeanne King West Chester, Pa.
Although I sincerely appreciate the humanitarian efforts of Kate Shindle and other Miss America winners, I think Shindle misses the point. She alludes to the need for changes in the pageant. And if looks are an important part of the competition, organizers should be honest and admit it. The real issue, however, is why a woman chosen to represent America as a social and political advocate must be beautiful. Shindle claims that pageant contestants are “intelligent, capable women who have something to say.” Why, then, must they also subscribe to a cultural norm of beauty? The Miss America Pageant gives the impression that being intelligent and promoting a cause are not enough, but that one must also be beautiful in order to be heard. Sonya Datta-Sandhu Lalamazoo, Mich.
I’ve been glued to the Miss America Pageant for as long as I can remember, with family and friends gathering around the TV set decade after decade. As someone who has lived with HIV for the past 22 years, I cannot think of a better public figure than Kate Shindle to get all the controversial issues surrounding AIDS out to the young. And her suggestions for modernizing the pageant would be a refreshing change for the telecast. Bravo, Kate! Stephen Bernstein New York, N.Y.
A Mizzed Fact
In " ‘Les Miz’ Bows Out" (Newsmakers, Oct. 14), you said the hit Broadway show “managed to make the French Revolution entertaining.” The play opens with Jean Valjean’s release from prison in 1815 and moves forward. Seems the 1832 Paris student uprising (the barricade scene) was confused with the revolution of 1789. David Horton Savage, Minn.
New Jersey’s Poster Boys
Shame on NEWSWEEK for covering an important political story with an article laced with references to a trendy cable-television show (“Tony and ‘The Torch’,” Oct. 14). Leave aside for a moment the fact that such prose trivializes a development that affects the state of New Jersey (and, given the split in the Senate, the nation). More important, some of us do not watch “The Sopranos.” Slowing down a political story with pointless allusions to pop culture may have seemed like fun, but it makes NEWSWEEK look like a bada-boob. Stephen Dravis Ballston Spa, N.Y.
Robert Torricelli is not responsible for tarnishing the image of my already image-challenged state. Torricelli’s Italian-American heritage is utterly irrelevant to his alleged misdeeds, and so is the fact that he is from New Jersey. Nationally known New Jersey politicians have excellent reputations for honesty. As you say, Frank Lautenberg is “clean.” So was Bill Bradley, and so, presumably, is Jon Corzine, who is filthy rich and beholden to no one. So were our past five governors, by all reports. Many of us in New Jersey did not think it was the “rogue factor” that brought about Torricelli’s fall. It was his egomaniacal ambition (together with his impressive IQ) that made him a very effective legislator, but it also set the stage for his demise. Torricelli should have had 20 points on his inexperienced and unknown opponent, Doug Forrester, but he barely managed dead-heat poll numbers. Charles J. Carroll Jr. Sparta, N.J.
Playing on Jonathan Alter’s brilliant article equating Sen. Robert Torricelli with Tony Soprano, I suggest that Torricelli is really more like Fredo from “The Godfather.” While the Democrats (i.e., the mob) wanted Torricelli (i.e., Fredo) to step aside, that’s not how he wanted it. I suggest “The Torch” not go on any fishing trips soon. Rachel Danielson Philadelphia, Pa.
If Jonathan Alter were writing about a disgraced politician who did not happen to be Italian-American, would his ethnicity have been a factor? And would it have served as the basis for a two-page article drawing parallels between him and a fictional mobster? Somehow I doubt it. If Torricelli is a crook, it is because of his character, not because of his Italian background. Joan Palermo New York, N.Y.
‘Not Just Semantics’
When will the scientific community stop touting the latest early-detection technique as an advance in cancer “prevention” (“New Hope in the War Against Breast Cancer,” Periscope, Oct. 14)? Prevention involves eliminating the cause. The most probable cause of the epidemic of breast and other cancers in the industrialized world is the increase in carcinogenic chemicals in our environment. This is not just a question of semantics. By promoting detection techniques as progress in prevention, medicine is diverting attention–to polluters’ immense relief–from where more resources should be focused in the battle against cancer: toxics reduction. Sharon S. Tisher, Instructor Ecology and Environmental Sciences University of Maine Orono, Maine
Welcome. Now Go Home.
I found the assertion by Kelly Shannon, spokeswoman for the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, that “security is our No. 1 priority” to be somewhat less than credible (“Stopped at the Border,” Oct. 14). Seven nations have been designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” by the new Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act. Conspicuously absent from that list is Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers and the man who sent them, Osama bin Laden. God forbid we should offend the Saudi princes by including their terrorist-sponsoring nation on a list intended to protect us from those who would again try to hurt us. Our government will instead “enhance” our security by keeping out Iranian pop divas and elderly Cuban jazz musicians. Scott Tyson New York, N.Y.
Those Elusive Movie Classics
I thoroughly enjoyed the article “Glitterati vs. Geeks” (Oct. 14). I have enjoyed classic movies for years and have sought to expand my personal library, only to be frustrated by the unavailability of titles that studios choose not to distribute. I see this as an opportunity for those like me to be able to obtain copies of movies that we cannot find and that are old enough to be beyond copyright. Cheryl Cook Horseheads, N.Y.
Is the Glass Half Full or Empty?
George Will’s Oct. 14 article provides another invaluable discussion (“Optimism and the Economy,” The Last Word). He is correct to point out that a problem with economic pessimism is that it “disregards too many facts.” The business of disregarding facts is the bread and butter of politics, and sadly, it is consumed by too many constituents like supersize food, contrary to the efforts of NEWSWEEK and other fact-providing publications. It is indicative, however, of the disease of the electorate, not the politicians, who only prescribe the short-term cures most people want to hear. And so we get the narcotics of clever phrases that are often contrary to what the leading parties actually stand for. We need real leaders to step up and not be afraid to tell us that there is more to an issue than can be commonly understood and that good things take time, then act accordingly. Randall E. Taylor Huntsville, Ala.
George Will makes a good point when he says, “There are two general problems with economic pessimism in America: in the long run it is always wrong; in the short run it can be self-fulfilling.” The primary reason for the severity of the current economic downturn is that George W. Bush started his term by emphasizing the weaknesses in the economy so he could presumably justify a big tax cut for his wealthy supporters. When the November elections are safely behind him and he no longer has to look for ways to divert our attention from the serious issues, I hope that Bush will address this problem with the same vigor with which he is pushing for a solution to the “problem in Iraq.” Wayne Packwood Austin, Texas
George Will’s detailed comparison between the current recession and stock-market decline and those of the past is of little interest to people who are hurting on a day-to-day basis. The thousands who have lost jobs and life savings in a corporate world of breathtaking excess are living in today’s economy, not that of decades past. When the Bush administration serves as an apologist for corporate excess and does little to fix the situation, it is time for thoughtful conservatives to hold it to account. Peter Sammond Minnetonka, Minn.
Roosevelt’s Choice
In the excerpt from Michael Beschloss’s book “The Conquerors” (“FDR’s Auschwitz Secret,” Oct. 14), you raise the question of whether Franklin D. Roosevelt should have bombed Auschwitz. The excerpt and NEWSWEEK’s commentary fail to mention one vital fact. There was never any point in WWII when FDR, or anyone who knew what we were up against, felt there was any certainty that we would win the war. Every person involved in the war effort, abroad and at home, knew that one plane, one tank, one man or one woman could make the difference between winning the war and losing. There were many more groups Hitler would have exterminated had he gained any more control. The Holocaust was, as Winston Churchill is quoted saying in this article, “probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world.” The act of winning the war by FDR, Churchill and the rest of the Allied forces was probably the greatest and most heroic act ever carried out in the history of the world. All who survived the death camps in the final days of the war, and their descendants, are alive today because the war ended when it did. Jim Guy La Pine, Ore.
President Roosevelt as our commander in chief had the information that the Holocaust was taking place. The German Air Force had been removed from the sky. If several key bridges and railroad yards had been bombed, this continuing tragedy would have been halted and tens of thousands of innocent lives saved. For this inaction, his name will go down in infamy. Jerome M. Grossinger Allentown, Pa.
Elections in Kashmir
Your article " ‘Nobody is Safe’ " (Sept. 30) makes some claims about the Indian Army that are not based on fact. The role of the Army in the elections in Jammu and Kashmir was to provide a safe environment for conducting free and fair elections, not to coerce people into voting. Both the Election Commission of India and diplomats from various countries who were in the region during the elections have stated so. The operations undertaken by the Indian Army to protect and honor the life of the citizens in that region have been extremely humane and people-friendly. It is a tribute to the Indian Army’s skills that it has desisted from using heavy weapons and explosives and has instead fought with light weapons–increasing the soldiers’ personal risk at the aim of reducing collateral damage. Col. Shruti Kant, Spokesman Indian Army New Delhi, India
Editor’s note: NEWSWEEK stands by its story.
