Letters

It

was great to find out about new research and teaching approaches to dyslexia [Sept. 8]. Perhaps the instructors who applied behavior modification to my son will learn from your reporting. They determined that he was just "not ready" to read and gave him art projects. My son was truly a child left behind by his school system, but he is now happily able to read to himself—after we, his family, discovered programs based on research that our local school system could not find.
Bill Thompson
Port Orange, U.S.

As the parent of a bright but dyslexic child, I find it especially helpful to share articles like yours with teachers, who are often skeptical about the condition and unaware of what can be done about it. My main concern is that dyslexia affects the ability to write as well as read. That aspect needs greater recognition, too.
Barbara Frenzer
Palatine, U.S.

Thanks for your story. It will help the parents of dyslexics spare their children the shame that often accompanies the disorder. I was always told that I wasn't trying hard enough, that I wasn't college material. At 37 I learned that I was dyslexic, and for the first time in my life I understood why school had always been so difficult for me. After many years of hard work, I earned my college degree at the age of 45.
Diane Thurman-George
Rocklin, U.S.

Being a Cantonese dyslexic in Hong Kong can be a nightmare and very challenging for the kids, their parents and teachers. As the mother of one of these children, I greatly appreciated the information in your article. More research in this area is certainly needed.
Veronica Wai
Hong Kong

Thank you for dispelling some of the myths about dyslexia. As a special-education teacher and language therapist, I have witnessed the pain and frustration of many bright and talented students as they struggle each day with the printed word. Early identification and intervention are the key. With the right teaching, dyslexic students can learn how to deal with written language and grow up to contribute their gifts and talents to the world.
Martha G. Steger
Taos, U.S.

Nukes for Everybody
You reported that the multilateral negotiations in Beijing were not a success, as North Korea refused to renounce nuclear-weapons development [Sept. 8]. But why should nuclear arms be reserved for only some special countries? The U.S. spends enormous amounts on its nuclear weapons while it seeks to have other countries destroy theirs. If the U.S. were the only country possessing nukes, the whole world would be ruled by this superpower. We should be appreciative that other countries are trying to counteract monopolization of nuclear arms by one country.
Christóbal Ravisto-Ruíz
Bogotá

Nobody has to be afraid of the North Koreans as long as a simple motto is followed: leave them alone, and they will leave you alone. I hope President George W. Bush follows this route, because if he uses the same strategy in dealing with North Korea as he did with Iraq, we will soon be facing a nuclear catastrophe.
Alexeij Nonotov
Ufa, Russia

Dire Expectations
Your article "Bloody Monday," on the Aug. 25 bombings in Bombay, noted that some officials believe the explosions were part of a campaign by Indian Muslims reacting to discrimination by Hindus [Sept. 8]. Mutual hatred forms the basis of the lives of millions of people in South Asia. The recent so-called stabilization measures between Pakistan and India are nothing more than a slogan to cover the leaders' mismanagement of affairs. Every decade we see officials of both nations calling for peace. But the drama always ends with the slaughter of poor people, Muslims and Hindus, on both sides of the border. Constructive measures are never taken. I am just waiting for the deadly end of the "peace" process. Will it be on a train or on some hill?
Khurram Afzal Malik
Lahore

Blair in the Glare
Re your notebook item on British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his testimony at the Hutton Inquiry [Sept. 8]: nobody has come out a winner in this situation, as far as I can see. Blair, the British government, the intelligence forces and the bbc have all "spun" things to suit their various claims. No one knows what to believe anymore. The Hutton Inquiry has certainly given us a fascinating insight into how the government is run and what sort of influence the Prime Minister's appointees, such as communications chief Alastair Campbell, have over government policies. Whether you are with the bbc or with Blair, there is one important fact to remember: no weapons of mass destruction have been found yet in Iraq. Therefore, the government lied to the British people about an imminent threat of attack from Iraq.
Rachel Harraway
Scandicci, Italy

It's clear now that most Britons think their government misled them about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. People are absolutely right to question the British government's honesty in leading them into an unjust, pre-emptive war against Iraq. But why is it that Tony Blair, who told the same stories about Iraq as Bush did, is under intense political pressure while Bush is not?
Ikechukwu Azuonye
Purley, England

Terror in Najaf
The terrorist attack on the Shi'ite mosque in Najaf, Iraq, may have achieved a host of objectives for its perpetrators [Sept. 8]. It created a big dent in the American plans for Iraq. It drove a wedge between America and the Shi'ite majority and scared off Iraqis who had been willing to collaborate with the U.S. It also proved that the Shi'ites still have no protector in Iraq. The best response for the U.S. is to shrink the goals of its mission. The old regime has been eliminated. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis; empower them to make their own decisions.
Omar Minyawi
Latham, U.S.

Blaming President Bush for the violence and sabotage in Iraq is like blaming a sailor for rough seas. Unrest in the Middle East is beyond any nation's control. The borders of the nations were formed by European colonials and do not reflect the groups of the region. To the people, the borders are cultural and ethnic, not political. There is no such entity as "the Iraqi people." They are Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds and so forth. Violence was a way of life under Saddam Hussein's regime. It is not possible for outsiders to do what is necessary to keep peace in the region, nor would the international community approve. Nation building must be a responsibility shared by many countries; it is a no-win proposition for the U.S. Yet pulling out is unthinkable. Having the U.N. join the effort in Iraq with U.S. oversight is the wisest course.
Dan Cross
Broken Arrow, U.S.

Bush's strategists seem to be convinced that it would be disastrous for re-election purposes for the U.S. to hand over Iraq lock, stock and barrel to the U.N. But the U.S. has already shown that it has a superior ability to get rid of nasty dictators. So now why not let the international community finish the job? Are there any Americans who really want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq?
Lennart Dahlbeck
Stockholm

For a Middle East Democracy
In "Lessons from the Rubble," about the bombing of the U.N. offices in Baghdad [Sept. 1], you stated that the U.S. in Iraq is "directly attempting to midwife the birth of a peaceful, democratic state that can act as a model for the Islamic world." If this is a key objective, why doesn't the U.S. start with the Palestinians? Not only have they asked for international peacekeepers, but they also want a democratic nation of their own. In terms of dollars and lives, setting up a Palestinian state would be cheap compared with the undertaking in Iraq. Moreover, it would be looked on favorably by the rest of the world, including Arabs. It would also deprive al-Qaeda of one of its major rallying points. It is not too late to create a beacon of democratic light. But I do not believe the U.S. has the courage to do it.
Martyn Whitaker
London

Excessive Compensation?
I was not surprised to read in "Big Board, Big Payday" that New York Stock Exchange chairman Dick Grasso will receive $140 million in deferred pay and retirement benefits [Sept. 8]. There is something wrong when ceos, board members and upper-level corporate managers get millions in pay and benefits while lower-level managers and rank-and-file employees are laid off or asked to give back pay and benefits "for the good of the company." Why are executives getting these outrageous benefits? Because those who decide on the compensation are ceos, board members and upper-level managers. When is the American public going to wake up? Every employee's job should be important. When a business is failing, everyone should feel the pain, and when it profits, everyone should share the wealth.
Wayne G. Gherke
Charleston, U.S.

Finding Life on Mars
The proximity of Mars to Earth [NOTEBOOK, Sept. 1] once again raised the question of whether there is life on the Red Planet. When the Soviet Union launched an unmanned probe to scout the Martian skies [July 18, 1988], we took the opportunity to remind readers that years ago, earlier space experts, including astronomer Carl Sagan, predicted that finding evidence of civilized life on Mars might be far more daunting than anyone had expected:

"The triumphant mission of the U.S. spacecraft Mariner 4 [in 1965] brought some reality to musings about Mars. The craft flew past the planet at a distance of only 9,800 kilometers, transmitting 22 television pictures of a bleak, moonlike landscape pockmarked by craters and showing no signs of life. Even so, hope persisted. To demonstrate that a Mariner flyby at a distance of thousands of miles might completely overlook a thriving civilization, a young and still unknown Carl Sagan that same year sifted through a thousand pictures of Earth shot by a weather satellite orbiting only 480 kilometers up. In a paper entitled Is There Life on Earth? he reported that only one photograph, of a snow-covered superhighway cutting a straight line through a forest, showed any evidence of man's presence on this planet."