Letters to the Editor
Readers write about junk mail, whether unions really damaged the Big Three, and what Obama's Cabinet nominees say about his incoming administration.
Mail carriers should not pick and choose what is delivered
In regard to the Dec. 2 article, "Americans hail a postman who didn't deliver": This letter carrier violated the oath he took when he accepted the job. All mail carriers are required to adhere to the principle of "the sanctity of the mail." This means that only the recipient determines the value of their mail. My understanding is that this was originally started to ensure nonpartisan treatment of political mail. Without this standard, a mail carrier could selectively toss mail that didn't agree with his or her personal beliefs. Also, this carrier defrauded businesses who paid in good faith for their advertising to be delivered.
Junk mail currently pays for much of the US Postal Service's operations. That means delivery to American homes and businesses and conveniently located post offices. Postal inspectors ensure a low level of theft and fraud. Somehow, all that has to be paid for. Our first-class postage is among the lowest in the industrialized world, and e-mail has considerably lowered the volume of first-class mail.
It is possible to manage junk mail, but it is up to the individual to do it. It is annoying and I, too, wish for an easier way. But I don't want my mail carrier making decisions for me.
Unions not to blame for Detroit's woes
Weren't union contracts negotiated with, and accepted by, management? If so, why fault unions for contracts that management accepted?
Furthermore, are unions responsible for failing to be ready for changing market conditions, such as high fuel prices? Are unions responsible for the inability of customers to get credit to buy cars? Are unions responsible for the inability of the corporations to get funds for retooling?
It seems that many factors have contributed to the demise of the US auto industry. A focus on unions seems misplaced and unproductive.
Obama's Cabinet is politics as usual
In regard to the Dec. 2 article, "Obama's team of stars: Can he manage it?": Few people would disagree that there is power in unity. Likewise, most people would agree that the magnitude of the problems facing the US requires a national unity of unparalleled breadth and strength.
The Monitor and other newspapers have been generous in their praise of President-elect Obama's Cabinet choices. Could Mr. Obama and the media be missing an important point? A competent, star-studded, and experienced cabinet and a charismatic president will not heal the wide political, social, and economic divides in the US. Only concerted action by our power centers will accomplish this.
Many countries that practice a parliamentary form of governance have proved that rule by political coalition can be productive. If Obama had allotted 30 to 40 percent of his Cabinet posts to Republicans, with John McCain as secretary of State, a powerful message would have been sent to a divided Congress, the American people, and even the world. This courageous leadership move would have lent credence to his campaign promise of real change and validity to the belief that Obama's presidency will be transforming. His cabinet choices to date do not indicate that this is the case.
The Monitor welcomes your letters andopinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted may appear in print or on our website, www.CSMonitor.com. Mail letters to Readers Write and Opinion pieces to Opinion Page, 210 Massachusetts Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail letters to Letters and Opinion pieces to OpEd.