A Thousand Rivals Pursue Google Whether Google remains the leader for the foreseeable future will depend upon many business factors rather than mere exploitation of technology (“Searching for the Best Engine,” Nov. 5). Business and technological innovations in accessibility, flexibility and ease of operation or service at the user end will be the deciding factors in determining whether a company can take its product to the next level of success. As things stand today, Google is clearly the best search engine available. It may, at times, turn up some irrelevant information but that is certainly better than cutting down on the relevant. Google remains so confident of its business model of advertising-based revenue generation that it continues providing its products free of cost to the end user; the latest in line being its online presentation tool. And with Adsense it has started sharing revenue with ordinary Internet surfers. Google has incorporated some revolutionary ideas into its organizational model and work culture, as well. In the shortest possible time, its innovative efforts have established flag bearers like Gmail, Picasa Web albums, its online community Orkut and Google Earth, to name a few. Businesses need healthy competition to serve people better and no monopoly position ought to be allowed to build up. Though it seems unusual that some governments are pumping millions into their search engine businesses, this is evidence of the potential market for such enterprises. Despite all its critics, Google is unique on the Internet scene and it would take another equally innovative venture to dethrone it from the numero uno slot. R. K. Sudan Jammu, India
I read the article “Searching For the Best Engine.” I realized that the Internet industry is one of the most competitive in the world. It has a potential market of users in every country; yet only people in those countries with a developed or developing economy are able to see that over the past four or five years, the Internet has become a part of the lives of almost everyone in the United States and Europe. Even though Google (one of the most powerful search engines on the Internet), is having problems of competence, as the industry grows, more and more companies are being created and they are also catering to the needs of various countries. Russia, Germany and other countries are creating their own Web search engines and Google is losing popularity. I think that this is just a part of globalization. Fernanda Gomez Guevara Mexico City, Mexico
Based on my reading of “Searching For the Best Engine,” it appears that Google will have to be really innovative to emerge as the clear winner in the cut-throat competition to dominate the Internet. A timely correction of its shortcomings would have helped it to sideline its competitors. In my own experience, Google is now too slow in updating the content it makes available. New search engines are imperative for Netizens in order to keep the user abreast of the latest developments. Their success will depend on whether they are capable of keeping up with the interests of people seeking substantial information about their surroundings. It’s really essential to feel the pulse of the user if a company wants to emerge as the undisputed champion in the virtual world. Arvind K. Pandey Allahabad, India
Fewer ’ Eurocrats ’ in Brussels? William Underhill’s choice of words, “Europe’s Sausage Factory” (Nov. 5), says it all. Instead of the three “Ds” (democracy, debate and dialogue), the European Union will continue to be plagued by its “ABCs” (arrogance, bureaucracy and confusion). The latest EU treaty is identical to the ill-fated European constitution and continues the top-down approach, which has always characterized the efforts for “ever closer union.” Only a minute minority of European citizens in the 27 member countries understand and feel comfortable with the European Union’s construction. This will never change as long as ordinary citizens cannot identify with this attempted superstate. The Germans and French will always be Germans and French first and “Europeans” second. The worst aspect of the European Union is that it never gave itself a geographical definition and that its ambitions are dictated by the lowest common denominator. The European Union, especially when seen as a legal entity in its own right, is a time bomb waiting to explode. Karl H. Pagac Villeneuve-Loubet, France
I was very happy when I saw that you had published an article about the European Union, but was much less so when I read it. Your writer forgot the four most important points related to what he tries to describe. All key decisions in the European Union are made by ministers from each member state—not by the “bureaucrats,” as he says. These ministers all come from democratically elected governments. For more than 50 years this EU cooperation has produced a lot of very important results that have enhanced the daily lives of the 487 million citizens of the European Union: the single market; the fight against monopolies and unfair competition; the common currency, the euro; free movement of all citizens through all member countries; equal treatment of all EU citizens; protection of the environment; the fight against climate change; a joint trade policy toward the outside world—and much more. Not just nitty-gritty stuff, as the article indicates. Your writer also forgets to mention that almost all countries in Europe that are not already members of the European Union want to become members. From 1952 until today the number has increased from six to 27. If the European Union were such a strange place, as the article tries to say, I wonder why almost everybody wants to be in it? Finally, there is the new Lisbon Treaty. Its main purpose is to make a European Union of 27 countries better in making decisions, to make it function better. The purpose is not to fight bureaucrats in Brussels. Of course, many things in the European Union could function much better, as with anything else. And many of us try to make it better. But to describe it in the way your writer does is far away from the realities. Niels Jorgen Thogersen Rixensart, Belgium
The Netherlands ’ Move Right I migrated to The Netherlands years ago (“The Dutch Have Become More Conservative. Is Europe Next?” Nov. 5). In those days, it was a completely different country altogether. September 11 and Pim Fortuyn quickly changed all that. Right-wing political opportunists like Geert Wilders (from the PVV, or Freedom Party) and Rita Verdonk (from the Trots op Nederland, or Proud of the Netherlands, political movement) are currently trying to benefit from far-rightist sentiments. However, if the many enlightened, sensible, down-to-earth and open-minded Dutch people that I have had the good fortune of getting to know during my stay in the Netherlands are any barometer, this is just a temporary phase that will soon blow over and the country will be back to being its open and liberal self again. Internationalism is in the blood of almost all Dutch men and women. For example, most of them speak several foreign languages fluently in addition to their native Dutch. They travel extensively and they are interested in foreign cultures and cuisines. Lastly, many Dutch people (including Crown Prince Willem-Alexander) have foreign-born husbands, wives or partners. A country and a continent of neocons? I certainly do not see that happening in the Netherlands that I know and have lived in for such a long time—or in the rest of this part of Europe, for that matter. P. Hwang Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Turkey Guards Its Eastern Front Your article “It’s Not About the West” (Nov. 5) surprised me, as there was more criticism than I had expected about U.S. indifference toward Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terror, which claims hundreds of lives in Turkey every year. Until now, many Turkish officials have protested American inaction against the terror coming from the Kurdish area in northern Iraq. Thus, I totally agree with your article’s point about “the difficulty of finding common ground with ’the rest’ if the West cannot manage to engage with the Islamic world’s most democratic and liberal (also secular) member.” Anti-Americanism is rising in Turkey (nearly 90 percent are against U.S. policies, according to a recent Pew Research poll). This ratio has little chance of decreasing soon given the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide in the House Foreign Relations Committee and U.S. pressure on Turkey to end gas deals with Iran—which seem to arouse even more suspicion here. I hope it is the right time to be less hawkish and more amicable if America does not want to spoil relations with one of her closest allies. Ilhan Calismaz Istanbul, Turkey
Mexico ’ s U.S.-Backed War on Drugs In “The Battle To Clean Up Mexico” (Nov. 5), the attitude of the United States is really hypocritical. Americans are willing to help Mexico prevent drug trafficking, but they are building a wall to keep Mexicans from entering U.S. territory. This anti-drug project is only for their convenience. Even your article implies that Mexicans have “a mediocre human-rights record.” We can infer from this is that Mexicans want to cooperate, but you also show an image of Mexicans as noneducated people and give the impression that Mexico is the worst country in the world because of its drug problems. Maybe drugs are produced in Mexico, but they are consumed in America. Lupita Saenz Mexico City, Mexico
I live in Mexico City, and it is true that drug dealers and criminal organizations are everyday problems that put our security at risk. Though I cannot stand the thought of having a North American Army in our country, I understand that drugs are a worldwide problem and we don’t have enough weapons to eradicate them. Nevertheless, this is a Mexican social problem. We don’t need foreign troops coming in with hidden agendas and mysterious objectives. Cezar Eduardo Beltran Via Internet
Biofuels Are Only Part of the Cure Fareed Zakaria’s interview with Stanford University’s Chris Somerville ("?‘It’s Not a Silver Bullet’," Nov. 5) gets closer to the solution to global warming, but is not quite there yet. Somerville at least realizes that we need fuels that look “just like our current diesel and gasoline fuels.” But he remains hung up on producing them from cellulosics by fermentation. How much better to have the plants do all the work and produce hydrocarbons directly. A family of green algae growing in the Indian Ocean does just that. Botryococcus braunii produce isoprene oligomers. In some strains, hydrocarbons constitute 70 percent of the algae’s dry weight. Frank Weigert Wilmington, Delaware
If the world needs a new fuel supply, why not focus on using the most common element in the universe: hydrogen. Cars have already been developed by BMW, Honda, Toyota and others that use hydrogen as a fuel. It’s being used in forklifts and other equipment in warehouses, and I believe there are also buses using it in some cities in Europe. The expertise is available. But the problem is that we need hydrogen-fuel service stations all across the United States and around the world. Since I don’t think the oil companies will willingly put a hydrogen pump in every gasoline service station, governments will have to do something to start that ball rolling. In the United States, perhaps the threat of a tax on oil-company profits if they don’t act to help us solve this problem would induce them to get into the hydrogen-distribution business. For them, it might be a very good deal, providing them with a pathway into a new growth-business venture while helping the world end its dependency on oil. Steve Dunston Irving, Texas
In “‘It’s Not a Silver Bullet’,” regarding biofuels, Chris Somerville mentions a “rap against corn-based ethanol,” the rap being the huge investments required to produce this corn-based ethanol. Somerville fails to mention additional raps against this alternative fuel—the huge amount of corn in the United States being diverted from food production for questionable use as a biofuel. And even more important is his statement that he believes that “the best analysis he has seen” says it is an “energy-positive” process to produce ethanol from corn. After all the “subsidized” installations to produce ethanol in the United States, why do we not have substantial, factual and unqualified data to determine whether or not it is energy-positive to produce? Dick Godfrey Chester, New Hampshire
It comes as no surprise that your interview with Chris Somerville makes absolutely no mention of the demand side of energy economics or science. It is far cheaper and quicker to reduce consumption of energy than it is to generate more of it. We must change our behavior before we are forced to. Let’s see more articles on alternative lifestyles, beliefs and consumption habits and fewer missives bolstering your large energy-company advertisers’ bottom lines. Gary Duell Clackamas, Oregon
Chris Somerville’s energy dialogue is appreciated, but I would like to ask: Why corn ethanol instead of sugar-cane ethanol? Second, why did the U.S. Congress place a tariff on Brazil’s sugar-cane ethanol? Many industries in America are affected by subsidizing corn for ethanol. Couldn’t importing Brazilian ethanol have an immediate benefit by displacing oil imports? Louis Hildebrandt Santa Cruz, California
At the time of Franco’s death, i was living in Chicago with my wife and child. I lived there for 10 years and had the opportunity to observe the enormous obsession of the American media with Franco’s life and death. Thirty-two years later, your reporters are keeping this obsession alive. Sarah Wildman’s Oct. 15 article, “The Longest Shadow,” misses the main point: Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero’s attempt to forge the law of historic memory is plain electoralism with very little substance behind it. Most of us—on both sides—suffered losses during the Civil War. We treat that as part of history, and expect nothing good from these political suggestions that perpetuate only their respective chairs and payrolls. Federico Arrizabalaga Valencia, Spain
As a Spanish citizen living in Spain since my retirement in 1998, after 41 years outside the country, I am shocked, disgusted and scandalized by your article “The Longest Shadow.” Your writer obviously does not live in the same Spain as I do. Spain came to terms with its Civil War after the death of Franco, when all political parties agreed to forget the past and get on with the future without accusations or recriminations. This was called Los Pactos de Moncloa, or the Pacts of Moncloa, after the residence of the prime minister. It is only since the arrival (by accident) of Prime Minister Rodr?guez Zapatero that he has tried to pit one half of Spain against the other, and this, 68 years after the end of the civil war. This law, called historic memory, has been criticized not only by the Popular Party but also by the ex-prime minister Felipe Gonzalez and by Fernando Mujica, the Spanish defensor del pueblo, or ombudsman, who is also socialist. It is time that your reporters writing on Spain got their facts right. It is not the first time that their ignorance about Spain shows. Carlos Bonafonte Via Internet from Spain
I was happily surprised to see the issue of Francoism dealt with in your magazine. As a Catalan, I always think that the problem is not given proper attention in the international media. I thank Sarah Wildman for her effort in analyzing the present political situation in Spain, which is indeed very complex, but I’d like to point out a few inaccuracies in her account. First, the autonomy granted by the Spanish Constitution to Catalonia is far from being generous—not only in the political sense but also culturally and economically. Second, the writer unfortunately refers to the Catalan language by calling it a “local language.” Catalan has been the language of the Catalan people since long before Spain conquered Catalonia and, naturally, our children learn it. And last, I do not believe that Spaniards from elsewhere have any problem moving in and finding work in Catalonia. To prove it, just walk the streets of Barcelona (or any other city in Catalonia) and speak Spanish. You will have no problem. Neus Portet La Garriga, Spain
Translations of Tolstoy With reference to “Lost In Translations” (Oct. 15) it is surprising that Malcolm Jones does not mention the most authentic and widely read translation of Leo Tolstoy’s “War and Peace,” by Louise and Aylmer Maude. The Maudes lived a lifetime in Moscow, knew the Russian language firsthand and were friends of Tolstoy, who said, “Better translators could not be invented.” I have been a Tolstoy scholar and written a book and a Ph.D. dissertation on “Tolstoy’s Search for the Meaning of Life.” I was disappointed that Jones mentions Constance Garnett but not Aylmer Maude. It appears he has not done his homework. Narendra Kumar Chandigarh, India
Malcolm Jones clearly shows his support for the newly translated version of “War and Peace” by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. But I’m confused by the translated excerpts placed side by side for comparison. Jones writes, “Like a pair of twins, each has its own character.” I fail to see how each has its own character in that each of the sentences are exactly alike but for a few syntactic tricks. Furthermore, the Anthony Briggs translation apparently makes use of better word choice, making it feel more like prose, which does not support the author’s position. These side-by-side translations presuppose that your readers are literary evolutionists; instead, let’s see them placed alongside the original Russian. For example was “joie de vivre” (a borrowed phrase from French) in the original Russian, or was that a result of Briggs’s attempt at classy prose, and is he being true to the original? That hardly seems “brisk and efficient.” James Campbell Taipei, Taiwan
Socialist Spending in Sweden In your article about the liberal benefits that everyone enjoys in Sweden (“The Stressful Situation,” Oct. 15) you report that Sweden’s nonsocialist government under Fredrik Reinfeldt may have gone too far in limiting paid sick leave. There are many of us who think that he has not gone far enough. Decades of Social Democratic governments has destroyed the morale of the Swedish people. And the spending has been a convenient way for socialists to buy voters. A recent government report shows that nearly $10 billion is spent every year in fraud and incorrect payments of paid parental leave, sickness pay and early disability insurance. All this unfair spending has a bad effect on those who really need help. Dennis Brinkeback Stockholm, Sweden
For the Record In “In God They Trust” (May 7), Evan Thomas writes “The God of Abraham is and has always been a martial God.” When I challenged Thomas for the source of such a sweeping, unqualified generalization, he replied disingenuously that he did not intend the sentence to mean what it means, but rather what he wanted it to mean. Such an all-inclusive, indiscriminate assertion has no place in NEWSWEEK, a magazine renowned for its commitment to objectivity and impartiality in reporting. Shalom Dinerstein Jerusalem, Israel
