Letters

Support for professor crosses loony line

How can you compare the two profs? ["Free the Professors," Editor's Note, Feb. 10]

You equate saying gays save less than married people with praising 9/11? I would love for you to tell your views to a New York firefighter or, better yet, a kid who lost a parent in 9/11, you know, the offspring of a "little Eichmann." See what kind of reaction you get.

I like reading "newspapers" like the Mercury because I subscribe to the know-your-enemies theory. Sure, you hate Bush, hate capitalism, hate big business, hate America...I expect that from a communist organization. But when you go so far over and support someone who rejoices at the mass murder of almost 3,000 people, that is when I have to say goodbye. Even the loony left has some boundaries, which you have sadly crossed.

--Eduard Dordea

Facts differ on history of Warwick, Bacharach

I just read your "Burt Bacharach" article online, and I feel I need to respond to it [Off the Charts, Feb. 10]. I feel your comments about Dionne Warwick are dishonorable and downright untrue. The following are well-known facts, not only by people in the industry, but by the public in general.

Thirty-three-year-old Burt Bacharach struggled professionally for 13 years before he met a 20-year-old background singer from New Jersey named Dionne Warwick. Yes, he made her a star, but she returned the favor. She shouted from the rooftops that she was the "voice" of Bacharach & David. She made their names household words...something other singers did not and WOULD not do. For example, how many people can name the composer of Petula Clark's hits?

Warwick's voice was incomparable. Yes, other singers had Bacharach/David-penned hits, copying Dionne's style, but the public didn't know they were Bacharach/David songs until they appeared on Dionne's album; her name was synonymous with them. No one but NO ONE could interpret Burt Bacharach like Dionne did.

Lastly, about the split-up...it was Bacharach who dumped BOTH Hal David and Dionne, leaving her stranded at Warner Bros. without a producer. And it was HE who came "crawling back" in the mid -'80s. She was once again at the top of her game with two Grammy awards and several top 10 hits under Clive Davis and Arista Records. It was she, once again, who brought his name to the forefront--by his own admission--when he accepted the 1986 Grammy for song of the year.

So it seems we disagree on who made who a star; perhaps we should ask all the other songwriters out there whose names escape us.

--Emil Cannarozzi

Bush getting ready to `liberate' Iran

Yeah, maybe soldiers could see this money as a way out for their families ["The Rise of the American Martyr," Viewpoint, Feb. 10].

What I am concerned about is that Bush and his cohorts are getting ready for another round of liberation. Iran mainly. North Korea we want no part in, mainly 'cause they could nuke Japan.

When the United States was getting ready to attack Iraq, I thought, well, the news media would eventually reveal the White House lies and there would be no invasion. Instead, the media were riding on the fenders on the way to see Baghdad Bob.

I suppose we're going to have to brace for another brilliant liberation plan for Iran? Yeah, maybe we can bomb them into voting too? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?

We don't even have fair elections in our own country.

--Terry Thompson

Bush signals defeat in Yucca Mountain battle

I enjoyed Michael Green's Feb 10 column ["A New Screwing from the Screw-up," Backstory].

Anyone with a single, solitary brain cell in his head can see what Bush's motive is: It's to force Nevada to accept a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain.

I see this as nothing more than a peeing contest, which I don't think Bush will win.

The defeat of the 10,000-year radiation standard in court pretty much killed the Yucca project both scientifically and legally. Bush said during the campaign he would abide by what science and the courts decided. His only other option is to try to bully Nevada into submission. It's a bluff. As a matter of fact, he is signaling his disgust over the loss of the repository.

--Ron Bourgoin,

Edgecombe Community College,

Rocky Mount, N.C.

Use DDT to save lives

President Bush is widely regarded as a pro-life president. However, his support for the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Treaty betrays his real allegiances. By further restricting the use of DDT, the treaty makes it that much more difficult to use DDT in efforts to defeat malaria. Consequently, millions of innocent men, women and children will be doomed to unnecessary suffering and death.

In fact, limiting the human population of the planet may have something to do with the drive to restrict DDT use. The decades-long anti-DDT campaign has been a mainstay of several radical environmentalist groups, including the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund.

In Southeast Asia, where the tsunami has already destroyed countless lives, a malaria outbreak would be a crippling catastrophe, a crime against humanity welcomed by environmentalists.

--Frank M. Pelteson