Netlets for Monday, May 5

Congratulations on your exposé of Al Franken's corporation's tax problems -- what outstanding reporting.

When will we read your exposé on Chairman Norm Coleman's oversight committee that has never investigated or publicized the disappearance of $9 billion and counting in Iraq? I ask you: Which has more impact on the U.S. taxpayer?

JOYCE BUMGARDNER, PLYMOUTH

Rukavina should join fellow legislators in wanting to protect teen drivers

Regarding the April 25 article "Legislators to new teen drivers: Forget those midnight joyrides": The comment of Rep. Tom Rukavina's, DFL-Virginia, that "lawmakers have forgotten what it's like to be kids" and more important his lack of support for the bill on teen driving restrictions are immature and insensitive to his constituents.

In January 2002 my brother, Brent Ulrich, died in a car crash. He was 16 years old, and a sophomore at Virginia High School. Many of the circumstances leading to the crash are not known, but here are a few of the facts. We know that the toxicology report came back negative for drugs and alcohol. We know that Brent was driving from Virginia to Duluth on a Friday evening without my parents' knowledge or permission. We know that there were four other teenagers were in the car with him. While several of the kids were badly hurt, fortunately, there were no other fatalities

Would the proposed law have saved Brent's life? No one can say, but while he may have thought he could fool my parents I seriously doubt he would have done it at the risk of being pulled over by the cops. In addition, at the time of the crash, Brent had been licensed to drive for less than six months. Under the proposed law, he couldn't have driven anywhere with more than one other non-adult in the car -- taking the fun out of a teenage joy ride.

Sadly, Brent's story is not unique, especially not on the Iron Range. Including Brent, three members of the VHS class of 2004 didn't live to walk at graduation.

What does Rukavina have to gain by not supporting this bill? It's time he grew up and did his job -- protecting his constituents, even the ones who aren't old enough to vote for him. His comments hurt me and my family. His lack of leadership could have hurt Range kids. Thank you to the many leaders in the House who voted for this important bill and to those in the Senate who showed the same leadership, so that more Minnesota teens will live to look back on their youth with nostalgia.

ALLISON THRASH, ST. PAUL

Parents are best monitors of their young drivers

I was disappointed with the Star Tribune's one-sided portrayal of the new teen driving legislation. Nighttime and passenger restrictions on teen driving do reduce teen traffic accident deaths, but only because they lower the number of teen drivers.

Since 1998, the number of states with such restrictions has risen from a dozen to 46. Over the same time period, the national rate of licensed 16-year-olds has dropped from 43.8 percent in 1998 to 29.8 percent in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available. Of course traffic accidents among teens will decrease when there are fewer teen drivers, but that does not help them learn how to drive.

The fatal flaw in this legislation is that it relies on fixed time periods to judge driving ability. Few would argue that every person who has had a license for six months drives just as well as every other person who has had a license for the same amount of time, yet this legislation holds that, regardless of skill, all drivers must wait six months before driving at night, even though many people drive in one month what others drive in six. A far better judge of driving ability is the number of miles driven; however, it would be infeasible for the government to keep track of how far each newly licensed driver has driven. This is why it is best left to parents to decide when their teenagers are ready to drive at night, not the government.

MICHAEL CAPP, ANDOVER

Look seriously before leaping into Iran

In response to the April 26 headline "U.S. eyes military options against Iran," I offer questions to consider in reviewing these options: How will Iran respond to a surgical military option? Answers: Perhaps fire more than a flare at our Navy ships, block the Strait of Hormuz and most of the world's oil supply? Attack Israel?

Other questions to consider: Will the troops brought in from around the world be adequately prepared? And most important, will attacking another sovereign country gain us greater homeland security, peace on earth and less death and destruction?

We cannot support this kind of history repeating itself. It's time to speak. It's time to organize. It's time to vote and hold elected officials responsible. It's time to vote for candidates committed not to repeat this history.

JOAN HAAN, ST. PAUL

Health care problems go way beyond antiquated filing

I read with bemusement the April 28 column by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich regarding technology and health care. The suggestion that antiquated filing methods are in part to blame for soaring costs is probably a valid if somewhat trifling point but how might I ask do Pawlenty and Gingrich suggest that these improvements be paid for? Surely as conservatives they cannot possibly contemplate that health care companies invest some of their enormous profits back into the system to provide us customers with a better service at a reasonable price.

Given the life and death implications, one would think that politicians such as these could use their influence to help those left destitute by our health care system rather than suggesting improvements to their filing methods!

CHRIS RICE, MINNEAPOLIS

Sensitive health care records on the Internet?

Better and less expensive health care outcomes based on universally available electronic health records? Speaking as a doctor, that sounds great--- but how are you going to protect patients from misuse of those records? Right now, health records are used to deny patients insurance coverage for health, life and disability, and can easily be used to deny jobs.

Additionally, records are readily available as a marketing tool to pharmaceutical and other companies who want to exploit our illness-related vulnerabilities -- people are called at their homes and subjected to direct marketing efforts for the latest medication or other product. Computer networks are notoriously vulnerable to hacking (witness the Social Security system, the VA system, and countless other large commercial networks containing sensitive data), and yet we are given an empty promise that only authorized users will view our most sensitive data. I, for one, don't believe it, and will continue to provide my patients the privacy of not posting their most sensitive information on the Internet -- to do otherwise is so change a contract to keep their records private many of them made with me 20+ years ago.

Commercial exploitation of our health data is widespread now, and will likely grow. As long as health care is a corporate commodity, our health will be for sale to the highest bidder; making our records easily accessible (and essentially public) makes us that much more vulnerable.

PETER A. ZELLES, ST. PAUL