Inbox

What She Left Behind
As a Pakistani Canadian I read with great interest your coverage of Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan [Jan. 14]. While I sincerely condole her untimely and fiery death, I must agree with William Dalrymple that her legacy was "mediocre." Far from being a martyr for freedom and democracy, she chose to live a life of luxury in self-imposed exile — in distant Dubai. Although she was Prime Minister of Pakistan twice, she did little to improve the conditions of the masses, particularly those of women and the poor.
Jalaluddin S. Hussain,
Brossard, Canada

Bhutto's return to Pakistan was regarded by many as the force needed to bring Pakistan back to the path of democracy. The sad truth is, there is nothing democratic about Pakistan's so-called democratic parties. Every election time, leaders assure us that they will make the changes they failed to carry out the last time they were in office. Bhutto's assassination, though unfortunate, will probably bring more change to Pakistan's political process than a third period as PM would have done.
Amna Mansur Khan,
Atlanta

While I condemn Bhutto's assassination, I have not forgotten what it was like to live in a country run by her. Both her terms as PM were marred by corruption scandals. She actively supported the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. She twice squandered the opportunity to make any tangible difference in the lives of the masses who voted her in. Her legacy is one not of democracy but of kleptocracy. Her will, which named her husband as her successor, underlines her lack of commitment to democracy. To her, political power was something you could inherit and pass on to family members. Pakistan has been declared a failed state, but I for one am optimistic. The economy is growing at 6-7% a year. I see a country with potential that has never been governed well. It is now up to educated, moderate Pakistanis to finally stand up and make a difference.
Uzra Casuri-Balouch,
Auckland

Bhutto, like her father, connected with Pakistan's downtrodden masses. She represented the hopes and aspirations of the country's poor and disenfranchised. For millions of her followers, her inability to deliver really did not matter. In a country ruled by inept, corrupt generals, Bhutto was an icon of defiance and courage. In death she has become larger than life. Her indefatigable struggle for democracy and willingness to take risks overrode much of the paradox that is implied in the article. Seemingly fragile yet politically astute and daring, Bhutto will remain a potent force in Pakistan's troubled political landscape.
Mushtaq Ahmed,
Dyer, Indiana

I just couldn't believe that the cover read, "Why We Need to Save Pakistan." Haven't our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan proved that our presence has accomplished little or nothing, made more enemies throughout the world and cost trillions of dollars? It's about time we stopped sacrificing American lives for impossible causes.
Ed Jacobson,
Whiting, Vermont

Bhutto's assassination highlights once more the deep contradiction between the U.S.'s stated aim of advancing democracy around the world and our actual practice of backing friendly dictators like President Pervez Musharraf when we think it suits our interests. The Bush Administration will retreat to its codependent relationship with the dictator, regarding him as the only remaining bulwark against a Taliban-style fundamentalist theocracy armed with nukes, and probably flirt no further with notions of a truly democratic Pakistan. These chickens will one day come home to roost.
Mark C. Eades,
Oakland, California

Pakistan needs Musharraf's strong leadership to weather the political backlash as Bhutto supporters try to link him to a supposed plot to kill her. Accusing him of plotting Bhutto's death is wrong. Cars have been burned, and Musharraf symbols have been destroyed out of hatred and anger. Martial law might be needed to prevent total chaos in the nation. Extremists must not be allowed to win the day upon the body of Bhutto.
Crystal Dueker,
Fargo, North Dakota

Ethical Executions?
If society wants and needs capital punishment, executions should be as painless as cataract surgery or baptism [Jan. 14]. Hanging, electrocution, firing squad and lethal injection all have aspects that are cruel to both criminals and those responsible for carrying out the execution.
Russell Crom,
Mount Prospect, Illinois

Should Timothy Mcveigh be sitting in a prison cell watching TV for killing 168 people and injuring 850 in Oklahoma City? No, he deserved to die. People want to fix what isn't broken and not fix what is broken. What is broken is the justice system that allows appeals to go on for 10 to 30 years. It is a system devised by lawyers, the only ones who benefit from it. Attacking the use of the chemicals is just one more excuse to end the death penalty. We need the death penalty to protect our policemen and the most vulnerable in our society.
Allan Gillingham,
Gilbert, Arizona

I was surprised that there was no mention of the many people who have been sentenced to death but proved innocent later. Some were exonerated and spared the death penalty, but many were not. I don't believe you would find a penal system that is any better than that in the U.S., but it is still far from perfect. The death penalty does not keep people from committing murder, and your article showed that it doesn't cost less than life imprisonment. It should be abolished.
Sherry Weaver,
Elkhart, Indiana

Babysitting a convicted murderer for the rest of his life by locking him in jail is neither justice nor a good use of taxpayer money. Consider the average 12 years of appeals for death-row inmates. Those years are a money machine for lawyers and end only at the execution.
Wilbur F. Poppe,
Denton, Texas

Merit vs. Mediocrity
Richard Corliss's recent suggestions in "How to Save the Awards Shows" were shameful [Jan. 14]. Any intelligent film reviewer knows that the best films and the most popular flicks are usually light-years apart in quality. Are the Academy Awards about honoring good filmmaking, or are they about trolling for viewers for the telecast? Shouldn't everyone be more concerned that the better films of the year get the attention they deserve?
Stephen J. Miller,
Orlando, Florida

If the Oscars can be faulted for anything, it's not for nominating obscure movies. Perhaps at its inception, popular films had the greatest artistic merit. But in a year in which intellectually void, flashy crowd pleasers (like 300 and Transformers) and idiotic supposed comedies (like Wild Hogs and Rush Hour 3) were among the highest-grossing films, how can Corliss justify suggesting that the awards go to more popular films? Discounting Ratatouille, you have to scroll way down the rankings to find anything that warrants consideration — like Charlie Wilson's War, No Country for Old Men and Juno. Moneymaking could be considered an art and a science, but I doubt that's what is meant by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Christopher Bruno,
Rahway, New Jersey

The audience-friendly awards show that Corliss fantasizes about already exists. It's called the People's Choice Awards.
Dewey Webb,
Phoenix

Thank god for Corliss and his ideas for saving the Oscars. He is right: they do need a change. Right now the show is like the drama-club awards in high school. And nobody wanted to hang out with those kids, cuz they were, like, so weird. The Oscars should totally be a popularity contest, like electing Homecoming Queen. Then, finally, some good movies could win Best Picture. Like Norbit. Or Wild Hogs. Or 300. While you're at it, Mr. Corliss, could you jazz up the presidential race? Who cares about all these debates on stuff nobody understands? I think we'd be better off if we had a swimsuit contest and just voted for the hottest candidate.
Craig Haen,
White Plains, New York