Netlets for Sunday, Aug. 10

"Loaded, unlocked handgun: Girl, 6, kills brother, 3" (Star Tribune, Aug. 5). Good God Almighty! When are we going to stop hearing of these tragedies?

How many children have to continue to die before the adults they live with learn the very simple lesson? Why is this so hard to understand, people? There's absolutely no excuse for this!

This poor girl will have to live the rest of her life with the guilt and horror of killing her brother. And whose fault is that? The mother and her boyfriend. And who should be charged with manslaughter? NOT THE GIRL!

PAUL DEEMING, EAGAN

Taxes shouldn't support culture of death "Playing politics with women's health care" (editorial, Aug. 3) is your usual blurb on the culture of death or population control issues such as abortion, birth control, partial birth abortion, etc. You the Illuminati want free rein to impose your beliefs on the rest of us by demanding that those who oppose the culture of death must comply with your wishes.

You espouse freedom without responsibility and demand of us who disagree with you to have responsibility for actions that are anathema to us, i.e. pay taxes but have no freedom to challenge what is being imposed on us.

You also mentioned that the U.S. bishops were for the rights of doctors, nurses and pharmacists who oppose the culture of death to not be penalized for their beliefs.

DON WAGNER, PLYMOUTH

Prose he can do without "...Swanson, once very single...now, Swanson brushes Moerchen's bare shoulders and wraps his arm around her waist" ("Chilling on Lake Minnetonka," Aug. 3).

Is this article serious? Please save the self-indulgent harlequin romance writing for the lifestyle section, or better yet, Fabio.

JIM SILB, MINNEAPOLIS

Lies about Obama shouldn't go unchallenged George F. Will's column about Barack Obama, "Some change we'd be wise not to believe in" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 3,) contains an inaccuracy that has been widely espoused by other conservative right-wing media members. To quote Will, "Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin resume regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major-party nominee since Wendell Wilkies in 1940." What? George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan -- all were state governors before they became president. Look it up.

McCain was an honored veteran and a POW, but he has consistently voted against any bills regarding the GI bill and other legislation for helping returning veterans and improving their care and benefits. His national security "experience" is nothing but walking the Republican line and supporting the current administration, headed by the former governor of Texas.

BRYAN KROTZER, BLAINE

Let environmental policy focus on consumption In his Aug. 2 column, Charles Krauthammer noted that importation of needed supplies of petroleum and natural gas, when more could be produced domestically, amounted to exportation of the environmental impacts of energy consumption. It is a good point. But it is important to recognize that this phenomenon applies not only to energy, but to basic raw materials in general.

The United States today is a massive net importer of the raw materials needed to support our economy and lifestyle -- metallic and nonmetallic minerals including iron ore and cement, petroleum (that serves not only as a fuel but as a raw material for plastics, synthetic fibers, and industrial chemicals of all kinds), softwood lumber and even bottled water. We import to the extent we do in large part because of dislike of the environmental impacts of raw material extraction and processing.

The nation's largest environmental organization responds to virtually every attempt to increase domestic production of basic raw materials by outraged references to greedy corporations, and a significant portion of the media and public appear to buy it. Consumption, however, is virtually never discussed by that organization or anybody else, nor is the concept of taking greater responsibility for our own consumption.

If we find the environmental impacts of timber harvesting, mining and drilling that support our consumption unacceptable within large areas of the United States, then why is it OK if those impacts occur outside of the United States? Perhaps it is time to begin a serious national discussion about consumption.

Rethinking of U.S. environmental policy is long overdue. Environmental protection is vitally important, but so too is a responsible approach to environmentalism. Perhaps the current focus on energy will help us to recognize that a fundamental change in thinking is needed.