Kids on race
This is a response to “A child’s view of black and white” [Opinion, May 23].
Lets just set the record straight. My children have felt the disease of racial tension far less than what I felt in the 1970s —and I had felt it considerably less than what my parents felt in the 1940s.
Yes, it has been slow, but there is no denying that we have come much closer to bridging the gap. We could appreciate the humor of our diversity and laugh along with the likes of Chris Rock and Larry the Cable Guy, along with countless others who point out our differences in a fun-loving way. This is America and we are all a little different.
To make some kind of hurtful conclusion based on what shade paper doll a 5-year-old prefers is idiotic. It is like trying to figure out what kind of food children like by showing them pictures of the food. We are talking about people — OK, races of people. But to generalize like that, we are missing a big piece — the essence of each individual. Without that piece, racism is back to square one. I say we have come too far to make that our conclusion.
— Anna Welsch, Indianola
Child mortality in the United States
I suggest something akin to “caveat emptor” when reading “U.S. not keeping up with global gains in child mortality” [page one, May 24] because it lacks information about the definition of child mortality for each country.
The data may have changed, but I looked into this decades ago and discovered that how a country defines child mortality varies. What is meant by the phrase is not as obvious as one would think.
Some countries exclude childbirth deaths. Others exclude childhood deaths within the first month, defining them as birth-related mortality. Others exclude other deaths for other reasons.
Some countries — the United States, for example — include all these causes of death in mortality statistics.
Some countries also have little immigration, thus their populations are relatively stable medically. Nearly all children are part of their population and as such do not have exotic childhood diseases, which immigrant children may bring into the country. In those countries, child mortality is likely lower than countries were immigration is frequent.
Without clarification, stories like this one only result in confusion and strike fear in the heart of parents needlessly. Remember to be skeptical. Look at the details.
— Jeff Wedgwood, Issaquah
Family planning for the developing world
In “Poverty and the pill in Africa” [Opinion, May 22], Nicholas Kristof described the devastating impact of overpopulation in the developing world as well as an “inexpensive” solution: funding worldwide family planning needs for $4 billion.
How could $4 billion be cheap?
To put it in context, this year’s U.S. defense budget is $664 billion, or 41.5 percent of the $1.5 trillion worldwide total military budget. This enormous amount of our taxpayer wealth is invested each year to “keep us safe” by ensuring we are highly capable of killing anyone we deem to have become a threat to us.
For a very small fraction of this cost, 0.6 percent, we could help stabilize global population —a key first step in making our planet healthy, safe and sustainable.
Why do people become a threat to us? Typically, it is when they have no hope for bettering their lives, no matter how desperate they are. That is when violence happens. An adjustment of U.S. priorities slightly more toward investing in global health instead of feeding our military-industrial complex would make our entire world far more stable and safer.
— Dave Gamrath, Seattle
With the rise of new angel investors and early-stage venture funds, the venture capital industry is going through a revival, according to Brad Feld, one of the founders of the Boulder, Colo.-based VC firm, 
