Dear Editor,

Maybe it is time for Obama to take the risk of simply telling AIPAC where to get off. Maybe it's time to see if, in fact, the "Israel Lobby" really has any teeth. And maybe it's time for a US politician/President to do what is right in the ME, rather than what the Israel Lobby wants.

What I don't understand is this: Obama has no chance of convincing old racist Jews - who don't like him because he's black and because he has a Muslim-sounding name and because they think he may not kowtow far enough when it comes to Israel - of voting for him. Most polls have shown that most Jews in the US will vote for Obama by a considerable margin and there is even evidence that most Jews don't vote on the basis of Israel. The Christian Zionists will never vote for Obama, for most of the reasons noted above. So why, exactly, is Obama even bothering to pander to these people at all? Leave them to John McCain. Concentrate on getting out the Obama vote, the young people and the well-educated, enough voters to overcome whatever swing vote potential old Jewish voters may have in Florida or New York. And then forget about them. Follow policies in the Middle East that actually make sense and don't perpetuate the kind of racism and brutality that has been an Israeli hallmark for decades. And do what is best for the US - and the rest of the world, too, not the least Israel itself.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Sir,

I certainly share the general distaste for China's decision to replace one child with a "cuter" one, i.e., one considered more presentable. But surely this superficiality is not only Chinese?

I remember reading an article in Time Magazine, way back in 1984, discussing the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic games. The women who held the placards for the various countries during the opening parade were all chosen on the basis of how pretty they looked.

Years later, I still remember how Time described the situation. The gentleman organizing the opening ceremony was told by other people "you can't choose these girls just on the basis of their looks" but he insisted that this be the deciding criterion. As Time put it, the women "not only looked good, they did good too". No criticism of the superficiality involved.

I agree that this situation is different than one of a young girl actually being replaced by a "better-looking one" but it seems to me that the sentiment is the same. No ordinary looking women held the placards at the LA Olympics - that would not have projected the image of physical beauty that the organizers were going for. I doubt that things would be any different today.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Cary,

This is a complicated question. But, it seems to me, in every important sense the niece's true parents are her adoptive parents. Why does biology matter? Yes, there may be inherited diseases, but that does not seem to be the concern on which the LW's possible involvement hangs. Instead, the LW seems committed to an idea that adoptive children should know that they are adopted. I don't think that this issue is so simple that any such hard and fast rule should apply. Surely, for some adoptive children, knowing that they are adopted could create problems. Surely, this is an issue that requires a case-by-case analysis.

In this instance, the LW does not indicate anything that would lead one to conclude that the niece is treated as anything but the parent's biological daughter. So, leave the family to make its own decisions. If the information about her adoption needs to come out, it will eventually but, right now, it's utterly irrelevant to the woman's identity. Leave her alone.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Cary,

I'm not going to condemn the LW. Humans are humans and people have complex emotions and needs. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all of that.However, there is also a difference between right and wrong. Understanding and appreciating human weakness and complexity does not mean losing track of the moral compass. The LW's actions have been wrong from the beginning, when she deliberately pursued an affair. Her actions are wrong now, when her preoccupation is with herself and how she feels and she seems to have little regard for how her actions will harm others - her husband and her children.

Infatuation doesn't last long. I suggest the LW break off her relationship with this young man, accept responsibility for her behaviour, and get into therapy. If her psyche was trying to tell her something, she can explore it from the safety of a therapist's couch. If it turns out that she is not suited for marriage and being a mother, then she will have to follow that where it leads. But she should not be putting the well-being of people she, presumably, loves at stake.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Cyrus,

I'd say it's not a question of the internet generation not mattering. I'd say it's more that there is a real chance that the internet generation does not vote. Until that changes, then its relevance in real-world politics is, sadly, rather limited.

In the last US presidential election huge efforts were made to "rock the vote" and get out young people. Absolutely nothing changed - the voter turnout among the young was no greater than in the previous election. If Obama can't get out the youth vote, then it really doesn't count.

Sincerely,

Shaun