Letters
Oil development vs. caribou? Regarding the opinion article "The real cost of drilling" (Oct. 8): I imagine the author was well intended, but the basic framework of his argument is wrong: oil development vs. caribou. Both can and already do exist together. I work in the Kuparuk oil field where the number of caribou has increased since oil development began. Just two months ago I had to be careful when coming out of the module where I work due to the caribou and their calves which were resting under the main camp building.
I have waited patiently on a nearby road for a herd of caribou to cross over. We don't hunt them here so they have no fear of us. I have seen caribou resting under the production facilities in the field. In the 2-1/2 years I have been here I have seen caribou peacefully coexisting with our oil development.
Contrary to the implication made by the writer, it is not an either/or proposition. Brian F. Leach, Anchorage, Alaska
Social Security reform: No third option In "Social security flap: much ado?" (Oct. 20) you argue that "dipping into the Social Security surplus to help pay for other programs would have no effect on benefit checks or the program's overall fiscal health." Untrue. Customarily, surplus payroll taxes are spent while the obligation of repayment is shifted to future taxpayers. But future taxpayers' ability to repay depends on future wealth.
What matters is not the obligation to pay future benefits, but the ability to pay, measured in real wealth. If today's payroll tax surpluses are used to allow individuals to invest in stocks or corporate bonds, then real wealth is created for the future. If Congress and the president spend every dollar they get their hands on, the only possible Social Security "reform" will be staggering tax increases for future workers and poverty for future retirees. There is no third option.
Do we save or do we spend? That question, your statement's to the contrary, is more than merely symbolic. Andrew G. Biggs, Washington The Cato Institute
Musharraf's rule in Pakistan I read with interest "Why US is wary of Pakistan's new rule" (Oct. 20). It contains a factual mistake. Pakistan and Iran do not follow the same religious sects. Pakistan is a predominantly Sunni, while Iran is a predominantly Shia.
Otherwise the article was a very good analysis. Military rule in Pakistan will not serve the cause of democracy or peace in any manner, whatever the public posture of Gen. Musharraf may be. But such minor mistakes discredit the whole analysis, as readers will think that if the writer does not know such a basic fact, how can they claim to understand anything deeper. Salar Khan, Peshawar, Pakistan
The Red Sox blues Regarding "Sports loses when fans and coaches go ballistic" (Oct. 22): I must strongly disagree with your taking the position that Jimy Williams, in getting ejected from the Yankees-Red Sox game, somehow incited the fans at Fenway park. It would have been a disgrace if Jimy Williams had not protested the umpiring calls and at the very least gotten tossed from the game. The umpires' calls were horrendous, with the most amazing thing being their admission of this fact.
The manager should be praised for taking a stand against admittedly terrible umpiring at two critical times in the most important of series. I don't understand how the umpiring rules can justify not calling for help when unable to see a play or when an umpire sees an egregious error on the part of a colleague. Don Elliot, Bowdoin, Maine
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. We can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com
(c) Copyright 1999. The Christian Science Publishing Society
