Inbox: Nov. 12, 2007

Sibling Science

I found your cover story on birth order fascinating [Oct. 29]. For years, I have attempted to interpret myriad human actions through the filter of birth order. Although I understand a theory is far from a catchall answer to psychological mysteries, I believe this one explains a large part of our behavior. Thank you for publishing the latest research.

Kathryn Bridges Pulliam

MOBILE, ALA.

I have three sons, so I read your article on birth order with interest. Example after example that you supplied showed that upbringing and parents' expectations influence children more than birth order does. I have made a conscious effort never to compare my sons, and I have encouraged each to pursue his own dreams. Each boy has very different aspirations.

Kate Robinson

LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J.

I searched for some mention of psychology's giants who first theorized about the behavioral differences among siblings. You didn't mention, for example, Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Sigmund Freud's and Carl Jung's, who wrote extensively that birth order predicts personality. Nor did you mention the modern, highly influential ideas of Virginia Satir, who recognized that firstborn, middle, youngest and only children each have characteristic ways of forming relationships, taking responsibility and responding to authority.

Charles Kaplan, MERIDEN, CONN.

Another Inconvenient

Truth

As a grandson of survivors of the Armenian genocide, I was intrigued to read Samantha Power's compelling Commentary "Honesty Is the Best Policy" [Oct. 29]. I've been alarmed by opposition to the resolution to hold Turkey responsible for the mass killing of Armenians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire. Political expediency should play no role in this debate; the facts overwhelmingly support what many in the world recognize as the 20th century's first genocide. If Turkey is to be the model moderate Islamic country, it should come to terms with its past.

Stephan Pechdimaldji

WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIF.

This misguided legislation is one of the reasons countries around the world see the U.S. as hypocritical and sanctimonious. Why don't we look in the mirror to see our gross mistreatment of Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese and Africans? Better to continue working with the Turks while encouraging them to repudiate the events of 1915, much as we strive to overcome the consequences of having enslaved the ancestors of 12% of our population. Honesty is the best policy? How about, Judge not, lest you be judged?

Derek Braybrooks, IRMO, S.C.

Thank you for publishing a fair perspective on the Armenian genocide and Turkey's denial. We invade countries in response to feeble threats but fold and quiver in our boots in the face of ultimatums from so-called allies. The genocide did not put our troops in harm's way; our President did. And whoever thinks Turkey can give up billions of dollars in trade and investment with the U.S. is foolish. More honest and objective people like Power are needed to help us bring this century-old matter to some sort of closure.

Eva Garibian, ARCADIA, CALIF.

Guns for Hire

Thank you for the article "America's Other Army," about the private security companies operating in Iraq [Oct. 29]. If the architects of the Iraq invasion had used some common sense--like deploying more troops--we wouldn't need military contractors. And if the Iraqi people had backbone and stood up to terrorists, our troops could come home. It seems that American blood is cheap to them.

Gerry Turchi, MOORESVILLE, IND.

Let's stop using the euphemism security contractor and instead use the age-old and well-understood term mercenary. Then everybody would have a clearer understanding of what is going on and what is being sanctioned by our government.

Christopher Hebeler, ST. LOUIS, MO.

Liberated from the Other Parties

Michael Kinsley began his essay "Libertarians Rising" by offering what he called an oversimplified contrast: Democrats are for Big Government, whereas Republicans are against it [Oct. 29]. But both parties are for Big Government; they merely differ on how to use it. Democrats would legislate compassion. Republicans would legislate morality. Libertarians would legislate neither. That is the difference in a nutshell.

Mark Hanley, SKAMANIA, WASH.

Kinsley implied that Libertarians emphasize the individual over society. We all need bread from the baker, meat from the butcher and family and friends for support and fellowship. All of this occurs spontaneously, without government's managing it. Yes, a limited government is needed to defend liberty and property, but this only creates the framework in which free people create society. Kinsley equates government with society, and that's what separates statists from libertarians.

Mark Gibb, LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS

Kinsley portrayed Libertarians as self-centered isolationists. Libertarians believe the government should trade and interact with other nations freely but not make alliances. And they do care about other countries--they just don't believe that U.S. citizens' tax dollars should be spent on other nations. If individuals want to help other countries voluntarily, that's their right. Other than those points, it was a good article. Thanks for giving Ron Paul more exposure.

Ryan McDonald, MANKATO, MINN.

Libertarianism is on the rise because the Democratic and Republican parties have been grotesquely distorted by their misguided leaders. The Libertarian Party is attractive because Democrats want to create a nanny state and Republicans want to extend the U.S. empire to the Middle East. The Libertarian Party should change its name to the Liberationist Party, because of its efforts to free Americans from the corrupted Democrats and Republicans.

H. Ann Tackett, FULLERTON, CALIF.

Mischaracterizing Libertarians as "against government in all its manifestations" simply alienates people. I know many constitutionalist libertarians who by definition support and love the idea of limited government for certain purposes, as specified in the Constitution. How could we love the Constitution and be against government in all its manifestations? My wife and I are active members of the community, so the idea that we are against community is completely wrong. We are against coercive policies enforced in the name of community. How could you call an act of giving charity if it was not done by choice?

Ben Orona, NEW PORT RICHEY, FLA.

Bag Those Chips