Letters to the editor

Contemptuous

Does Karl Olson really want us to take him seriously after he declares that “[f]ew senior administration officials, right-wing media figures or neocon think tank members personally know any enlisted service members” (“War supporters should serve and be quiet,” Letters, Monday)?

How can he possibly know this? Did he take a survey or is he simply trying to justify his own antiwar ideology?

The fact is, seven current members of Congress have sons serving or who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. That’s roughly 1.3 percent of Congress — about equal to the percentage of those serving voluntarily in the armed services compared to the eligible population to serve as a whole (discounting the too young, the aged and the infirm).

Perhaps Mr. Olson should do a little homework before making unproven statements that reflect only his contempt for the military.

CAPT. RAY WIKSTROM

Navy (retired)

Jacksonville, Fla.

The facts of life

I disagree with S.R. Lewis’ Forum article, “What really divides America” (Nov. 19), where he lays out the dichotomy between religious and secular America using partial-birth abortions and stem-cell research as a springboard.

The debate can be more fundamental than simply splitting down religious, and therefore often political, lines. In the interest of unifying the two Americas that Mr. Lewis claims would do better apart than in any sort of compromise, it is important to understand that people, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, consider human life to be sacred on some level.

The debate, however, does not surround this fact, but rather whether or not an embryo or fetus has rights, and if so when these rights are imbued. However, the sanctity of human life does not hinge upon whether or not a fetus has a soul or when a person becomes a person. More important, it is not reliant upon a fetus having rights. It is possible to unite both religious and secular views then, if it is understood that human life is intrinsically and incontrovertibly valuable regardless of its possession of rights and must, for this reason, be treated as such.

CLEMENTINE WALL

Elon, N.C.

•

In a powerfully incisive Op-Ed, “Ignorance and abortion” (Monday), Nat Hentoff homes in on an undeniable yet oft-denied medical fact. He laments a Court of Appeals panel’s decision to block enforcement of a South Dakota law that would mandate fully informing women who are considering abortion that their developing baby is “a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”

The justices may have wanted to avoid the hotly condemning reality, implicit in the informed-consent law, that 33 years of court-sponsored abortion on demand has actually killed tens of millions of “whole, separate, unique, living human beings.”

Like these judges, the average American can no longer hedge or hide on this issue; the evidence is too clear and compelling. Medical technology such as 4-D ultrasound, increasingly earlier survival of prematurely born infants and growing lay understanding of a human embryo’s genetic uniqueness and completeness have highlighted the humanity of the young victims of abortion. As Mr. Hentoff reminds us, sonograms have ripped the veil off the so-called blob of tissue deceit with clear pictures of developing babies in the womb, “yawning, blinking, sucking their thumbs, smiling and crying.”

Permitting the powerful to take away the rights of the powerless is incompatible with a republican democracy and paves the way for totalitarianism. Our republic may well hinge on whether or not we can muster the public and political will to uphold the unalienable rights on which it stands.

JONATHAN IMBODY

Senior policy analyst

Christian Medical Association

Ashburn, Va.

Blowing in the wind

Professional engineer and Cape Cod-based newspaper columnist Solon Economou believes that hydrogen produced by windmills can eventually power our cars (“Wind-power in your tank?” Commentary, Monday). Not likely.

Even if one disregards the numerous technical problems and costs associated with the production and transportation of hydrogen, there are other factors that argue against it as a practical automotive fuel.

For one thing, hydrogen has an extremely low energy density. A gallon of liquid hydrogen has about one-fourth the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. This would require a substantial increase in the number of tanker trucks delivering fuel. Worse, liquid hydrogen evaporates rapidly. Even sitting still, a car can lose as much as 4 percent per day.

The article in last Friday’s Auto Weekend section (“Driving into the future”) describing an experimental hydrogen vehicle illustrated many of these problems. BMW modified one of its cars to run on either gasoline or hydrogen. It has a 16.3 gallon fuel tank for gasoline, and a 45 gallon tank for liquid hydrogen. It can travel 310 miles using the gasoline, but only 125 miles using the hydrogen.

Doing the math, that’s 19 mpg using gasoline, but only 2.8 mpg using hydrogen. In other words, the car gets seven times better fuel economy with gasoline than with hydrogen. And hydrogen is much more expensive than gasoline even before the government starts adding taxes to it.

If this were not enough, how does Mr. Economou plan to overcome the objections of his Cape Cod neighbors who don’t want windmills spoiling their view?

ROGER JOHNSON

Kensington

Sickle cell

As an applied social psychologist who conducts research on how adults adapt to sickle cell disease, I read the article “Raising the issue of sickle cell” (Metropolitan, Nov. 21) with great interest. However, it contained a significant error — sickle cell anemia affects nearly 80,000 individuals in the United States rather than the 8,000 indicated in the article.

This error is a metaphor for the way sickle cell is situated in the public consciousness: It is something that we know exists, but don’t fully grasp the magnitude with which it impacts individuals, families and communities.

Six years from now, when young people like 15-year-old Benjamin Clark turn 21, what resources will be in place to help them successfully cope with the pain of sickle cell and pursue — with zeal and enthusiasm — those things in life that will be important to them as adults? Most people in the Washington area may be surprised to know that even though the sickle cell population is living longer, there is a scarcity of services available to adults. For example, the only hematology clinic in Maryland that is specifically dedicated to treating adults is led by Dr. Sophie Lanzkron and a small, but dedicated, group of colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Sickle Cell Center for Adults. Their work could be greatly enhanced, however, if more comprehensive services — especially those related to education, employment, housing and social services — were offered to those who are among the estimated 3,500 adults with sickle cell disease in the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

Earlier this year, Maryland State Delegate Shirley Nathan-Pulliam and a group of colleagues introduced House Bill 851, which mandated that funds be established expressly for Maryland’s adult sickle cell population. However, the approved version of the bill only called for a single report of recommendations for adult sickle cell anemia to be rendered by Friday.

Concerned citizens need to ensure that state and local officials seriously consider and respond to the recommendations emerging from this report. We can do much more than support community fund-raising activities that seek to raise awareness about sickle cell — we must also encourage our legislators to support new initiatives that will provide funding for comprehensive services that give young people like Benjamin Clark an opportunity to thrive in the game of life when they become adults.

SHAWN M. BEDIAKO

University of Maryland,

Baltimore County

Baltimore