Netlets: What was the shooter thinking?

Media must focus on motivations of Fort Hood shooter

We should avoid any false sense of comfort if it is proven that the Fort Hood shooter acted alone. This would not mean he wasn't influenced by the same hateful ideology that infects individuals as well as groups like Al-Qaida or Hezbollah.

It is vital that the politico-religious aspect of this story not be swept under the rug as opposed to receiving the full coverage your readers deserve. You have a journalistic duty to dig past cursory reports and not be complicit in glossing over the connection between deadly acts such as this, whether worldwide or at home, and the Islamist extremism that fuels them.

BRAD JOHNSON, ST. PAUL

A Nov. 4 letter asserts that if a public medical insurance option raises taxes by $5,000 and you no longer have to pay $10,000 for private insurance, we will come out ahead. The writer's math is interesting, but he offers no support for either number.

Blue Cross of Minnesota pays out more than 90 percent of premiums collected in the form of benefits to its insureds. Does anyone believe that our federal government can run anything with an expense ratio of less than 10 percent? Competition drives cost lower in a free market, not higher. Our focus should not be on exchanging a huge government bureaucracy which would prove to be cost-inefficient and unwieldy for a few highly publicized CEO compensation packages. Size of scale does not always yield lower costs. Who suspects that the U. S. Postal Service is managed to lower expenses than the United Parcel Service?

Any first-year actuarial student could point out, you cannot pick up the previously uninsurable and lower premiums at the same time. Universal health care for all is a worthy objective, but it should not be represented as a cost-savings mechanism. Lowering costs in our current health system, or in a government-run health system, can only be accomplished by rationing the amount of care provided. Is this really what we want? We need a more compelling argument than net lower costs to abandon what has been widely admired by the rest of the world. We need only to look at our own Mayo Clinic to know what is possible in a nongovernment-run system.

GALEN SEVERSON, BLOOMINGTON

In a TV commercial, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites high unemployment as their main argument against a health care reform bill that they claim would raise taxes. They're advancing the notion that hard-working Americans shoulder enough of a burden as it is without a health care reform bill adding to it.

Plenty of people will hear that and assume that there's some kind of logic to it without even taking a few seconds to try and find any logic in it. There are others who know nothing or care nothing about the issue and figure that it sounds about right, considering what end of the political spectrum they live on.

But for people who know, care and are personally affected by the rising cost of health care, that commercial is an insult. Just stop and think for a moment about those nearly 10 percent among us who are unemployed. How are they going to pay sky-high premiums when they've lost their employer-provided health insurance? And it's not just the unemployed, but also the under-employed and small business owners who are getting crushed by the insurance companies.

How stupid does the Chamber of Commerce think we are?

JIM BOOTZ, MINNEAPOLIS

The critical evaluation of "Smart Choices" processed-food labeling is justifiably part of the health care debate. If we would just be careful about diet, we'd save a lot of money now spent on medical care, no matter what bill finally wins.

For people who don't like studying side panels on those food packages, I present a self-imposed "rule of 25's" used for my average-sized body. It does involve a quick look at the panel for fat, salt, sugar and fiber. Will a serving or two help me get under 25 grams of saturated fat for the average day, under 2500 mg of sodium, under 25 grams of added sugar, and over 25 grams of fiber? I also avoid "partially hydrogenated'" ingredients (trans fats). That's it. No rocket science.

JIM BARTOS, BROOKLYN PARK

If we are seriously concerned about reducing energy consumption, curtailing obesity and minimizing noise pollution, we will ban leaf blowers. Could it be any more obvious?

OK, there is a catalyst. I spent a beautiful Sunday afternoon raking leaves, wanting to hear the birds but listening to a neighbor's leaf blower. When I was done raking, she was still blowing -- consuming energy, being relatively sedentary and disturbing neighborhood ambiance. Alas.

JEAN GREENWOOD, MINNEAPOLIS