Readers write for Wednesday, March 23

Television and radio are miraculous. They enter nearly every home in the country. To fail to use them as educational devices is absurd, yet some people feel that taxpayer support of these educational tools is wrong.

They believe public radio and television are contrary to institutions that they hold near and dear. But if these institutions cannot bear the scrutiny given them, perhaps the institutions are flawed.

There was a time when women could not vote, teachers could not be married and slavery was acceptable.

I pay taxes, and some of that money goes to causes I disagree with. I also contribute to public radio and television because education is an something I hold near and dear.

Perhaps we could continue to support public broadcasting so that those among us who can't afford to go to the opera, attend the orchestra or visit the Grand Canyon can at least experience them through the miracle of our televisions and radios.

To squander the opportunity to offer education to so many households in our country is inexcusable.

GARY ASH, CEDAR

• • •

National Public Radio gives both sides of an issue and during political campaigns holds debates that give equal time to both candidates. Its interviews with candidates are uninterrupted and nonjudgmental.

A reader writes (March 22) that he doesn't like the negative treatment of some institutions he supports by NPR. NPR is trying to give the public a clear and unbiased look at those institutions. Maybe he is hearing for the first time some facts about those institutions that he didn't hear on Fox News.

Fox is owned by wealthy and powerful groups that have a lot to gain by supporting politicians who will ensure legislation that will help them profit but that may be harmful to the common good.

Market-driven news is not the kind of news you want if you wish to see your country continue to be a democracy governed by elected representatives and not by corporations.

MARTHA J. GORSKY, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

I knew when the measles cases became public, the vaccination scare tactics would follow, just like they did last year with the flu. We are fortunate to live in a country where diseases like the measles are almost eradicated and usually can be treated without complication.

We are lucky that vaccinations are so readily available and that most kids do fine with them.

I have a 6-year-old son with autism who received all of his shots on schedule. He got a high fever and bumps with each one, which I was told was "normal."

I don't question the need for vaccinations. What I question is the need for so many at so young of an age, and the ingredients they contain. (The research, funded by drug companies, is filled with contradictions, partial information and uncertainty.)

The United States is the most vaccinated country in the world, with 36 vaccinations by kindergarten, compared with 10 a generation ago.

The rest of world averages 18 shots. Autism rates went from 1 in 10,000 in the United States to 1 in 100 since the last generation, too.

Vaccines are never tested for their "combination risk," despite the fact that children may get as many as six vaccines in a single visit to the doctor.

I would never tell anyone what to do with their children. If you trust the research the drug companies have conducted, follow the schedule, and your children probably won't get measles.

Hopefully they won't get autism, either. There are alternative vaccination schedules; there are blood tests to test for antibodies (rather than getting a second booster shot), and there are shots available with fewer toxins.

Please review the data on both sides yourself and make an educated decision for your children.

BECKY BRANDT, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

Thanks to the Tesfa Foundation for pointing out that all over the world as education rises, so does the clamor for democracy (Opinion Exchange, March 22).

Conversely, has anyone noticed that as the interest and will to fund education in this country falls, so does the interest of its citizens to participate in American democracy?

Books are cheaper than bombs.

JANET GRABER, BURNSVILLE

* * *

Instead of opening up gambling at Canterbury Park, why not create a casino at the airport? The advantages would be numerous:

•It would not be a direct competitor to tribal casinos, because it would be accessible only to ticketed airline passengers.

•It would generate revenue from people who in many cases are not even residents of the state (and what Minnesotan wouldn't want that?).

•Many of the negative externalities associated with gambling and casinos could be eliminated or reduced -- there would be no "red light district" nor traffic jams, and gamblers could be allotted a maximum amount of chips (e.g., $200 per plane ticket).

•The "regressive tax" problem of a state-run casino would be mitigated because the "tax" would be levied only upon people who could afford to fly.

BEN SEYMOUR, MINNEAPOLIS