Netlets for Wednesday, Aug. 20

Want my vote? Ask me to grow up and make some tough decisions.

From the president on down, political leaders continue to entice us with their shortsighted solutions to a deepening, unremitting and unforgiving problem: our addiction to oil. Most of us recognize the truth about ourselves, and the way to address us is not to find additional resources to feed our addiction (we don't need enablers), but rather to challenge us to kick our bad and selfish habits, to remind us that we can learn new ways to live, while still celebrating the wondrous privilege.

Who says we have a right to everything we want? Where is the politician willing to talk turkey to America and encourage us, then challenge us, to begin living as we must live in order to heal ourselves?

DICK GIST, PRINCETON, MINN.

When it comes to gas prices, there's no average consumer The argument of Indur Goklany and Jerry Taylor that "Gasoline is more affordable for American families now than the early '60s" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 13) is false .

They say "Gas prices are cheap relative to average personal wealth." Of course they are. Rich folks' personal wealth has increased manyfold and their household incomes increased 51 percent from 1967 to 2006. Although the lowest tax payers' income increased 27 percent during the same period, do any of us seriously believe that the poor have anything called "personal wealth"? The poor need to buy food, utilities, rent or mortgage, child care and clothing the same as rich people, leaving little or none for gas to their three jobs.

What about seniors such as I whose incomes have halved in retirement -- I'm one of the lucky ones. I still drive many miles every day -- to work out, to medical appointments, volunteer activities, grocery shopping, errands and entertainment. My car is 11 years old and in tip-top shape, but I can't squeeze any more than 34 miles per gallon out of it (and that is great, compared with many poor people whose 20-year-old cars get 10 to 11 mpg.). And even I am cutting back to pay for the gas increases.

Lumping rich and poor incomes and/or average personal wealth and dividing by per gallon gas prices gives us the wrong picture. Who is this "average person" with "disposal income to whom Goklany and Taylor refer? Let's understand that the rich don't care about this issue, but the poor and shrinking middle class care deeply.

JOANN L. HUNT, EDINA

Ethanol's minuses have long been obvious Every drawback to E85 in your Aug. 10 article "E85: The ethanol blend appears to be stalling" has been well known since before the state's ethanol push. Lower mileage, as well as its relatively "energy-neutral" production (from corn) are not new discoveries. I have never understood why this short-term energy solution was pursued. Why would anyone buy flex-fuel car over a higher mpg regular car or hybrid?

STEVE BURBIDGE, EDINA

American society can do without the scarlet W The desire of an Aug. 12 letter writer to "make it tough on them" (welfare recipients) is unbelievable. He wants them to be publicly identified so that everyone knows their financial status and can check on their every movement. Perhaps they should wear a scarlet W on their chest to let everyone know of their failings. Just because he perceived a few individuals on welfare to act in fraudulent ways, he wants to punish the entire population, the majority of whom (just like every other group in our society) are law-abiding, positive members of society.

His comment about "being on welfare is a permanent vacation of sorts" is reminiscent of Barbara Bush's statement after Hurricane Katrina, when she said since the evacuees were poor, they were probably better off in the shelter because they were getting fed and attended to. Not my idea of a vacation!

Have we lost our since of humanity and compassion? It seems that some people view others solely on their financial status. If you are rich you are somebody, if you are poor you are dirt. It might be OK in a purely capitalist society, where money drives everything. But not in a capitalist society that claims to be based on principles and values of religion and respect for all human beings. People of faith and humanity have compassion and understanding.

Life is already tough enough on individuals on welfare. They don't need to read mean-spirited letters that hurt even more.

ROBERT SHUMER, EAGAN

Maybe press coverage of presidential campaign could be unpredictable Your newspaper, like all other major newspapers, refuses to cover the Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez presidential run. In spite of that Nader received 6 percent in a recent CNN poll.

It seems clear that more coverage of this campaign would only lead to higher poll numbers. If these numbers got high enough, Nader would be included in the presidential debates.

It can only be concluded that your paper, among many others, want to keep any third-party candidate from participating in the debates.

Isn't it time that the American people heard from more than two predictable, limited points of view?

CHRIS PETRILLA, MINNEAPOLIS

Don't count on economic growth to democratize China Steve Chapman (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 13) argues that critics shouldn't worry about China's poor human rights record, because the nation's economic growth will eventually prompt democratic reform. He explains this argument by making a second set of claims: that "[economic] development and democracy almost universally move in tandem," and that "you can usually anticipate political advances by gauging the rise of GDP per capita."

The "development breeds democracy" theory is quite popular in political (and punditry) circles, and seems cogent enough on its surface, especially to those accustomed to the freedom and prosperity of Western democracies. The problem, though, is that the theory doesn't hold up to scientific testing. Researchers Heo and Tan in 2001, for example, examined the democracy-development linkage across developing countries and concluded that, statistically speaking, "it is as likely that economic growth causes democracy as that democracy causes economic growth," meaning a clear causal connection cannot be made either way. Chapman is accurate, then, when observing that almost every rich country in the world is "free," but is on shaky ground when claiming that the riches caused the freedom, and that they will do so again in China.

There may be some truth to Chapman's claim that "as countries become richer and more educated, they unleash forces that are incompatible with authoritarian rule." But this hasn't happened in China (at least, not yet). And statistical evidence shows us, unfortunately, that it is foolish to assume that "economic growth" alone will inexorably liberate China's repressed citizenry in the future.

JOHN DEWEY, MINNEAPOLIS