Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
Thibault Camus/The Associated Press
..................................................................................................................................
Facebook helped elect ...
Re Remember, Facebook Helped Elect Obama First (March 22): In comparing various political parties’ use of social-media data to tailor their election campaigns, Konrad Yakabuski sums up by saying the practices of the Obama and Trudeau teams “inspired awe rather than outrage. The Cambridge allegations have only provoked outrage. What am I missing here?”
What he is missing can be found in a story in the previous day’s Globe and Mail, in which whistle-blower Christopher Wylie describes the objectives of SCL Group: “When I was there, one of the bread-and-butter things of the company … was rumour campaigns and undermining people’s confidence in civic institutions so that they don’t trust the results” (New Facebook Probes Launched As Whistle-blower Speaks Out).
That passage stopped me in my tracks when I read it. What they were doing is worthy of outrage. It seems to me that this is tantamount to treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
Deborah Richmond, Carleton Place, Ont.
............
Konrad Yakabuski asks what he is missing when the Obama campaign’s use of Facebook inspired awe, while the Trump campaign’s use of Facebook provokes outrage.
The answer is simple.
In the former case, the candidate, whether you agreed with him or not, promoted a positive vision that was inspirational and sought to bring out the best in people. In the latter case, the candidate, whether you agree with him or not, promoted, and continues to promote, a dark vision that is divisive and hateful, and designed to bring out the worst in people.
Kenneth L. Kallish, Toronto
............
What am I missing here?
Answer: Russia.
Cheryl Anderson, Picton, Ont.
............
The Russian Internet Research Agency spent some $45,000 on 2016 pre-election day Facebook ads, compared to some $81-million spent by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and that excludes political action committee spending.
It appears that the Russian spending was exceptionally focused and efficient to affect the outcome of the American election to such a grand extent as to put the mainstream media in a constant state of journalistic apoplexy. Maybe the Democratic Campaign Committee would be far better off hiring the Russians to run their midterm election.
Miles Tompkins, Antigonish, N.S.
Don’t eat/drink this
Re We’re So Addicted To Plastic That We Drink It Every Day (March 22): The three Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle – are certainly commendable but there’s a fourth R that’s often ignored: reject. As Greenpeace has been advocating for decades, when products and actions threaten or harm us and our environment, it’s better to “just say no.”
Les Bowser, Omemee, Ont.
............
Re Washington Seeks To Limit Food-Label Warnings Under NAFTA Negotiations (March 22): American NAFTA negotiators are trying to thwart the authority of our government to implement health policies and programs by seeking to remove front-of-package labels on food products containing high levels of sodium, sugar and saturated fats.
All this so they can protect the profits of large food companies. This is outrageous.
Canadian NAFTA negotiators led us to believe that matters of public policy, especially in health, would be off limits in trade negotiations. Chrystia Freeland and her team must make it clear to their American counterparts that this latest proposal will never succeed.
Marguarite Keeley, Ottawa
Ethics of product testing
Re The Costly Toll Of Animal Testing (Report on Business, March 21): Hats off to University of Toronto finance professor Lisa Kramer for a succinct and refreshing look at the issue of using non-human animals in medical research.
We have been pouring good money down this unproductive drain for far too long, with pitifully limited results. Ms. Kramer has done us all a favour by detailing the moral, practical and financial failings of this outdated system.
Her take on the matter should be required reading for the politicians who decide where our research dollars end up. Maybe then we would finally see some tentative steps out of the dark ages – and dark cages – and into the technological advances of the 21st century.
Scott Kennedy, Toronto
............
There are hundreds of studies where pre-clinical testing with animals accurately pointed us in the direction of successful therapies for humans. Instead, this column focuses on those few headline-grabbing studies that did not accurately predict human response, and proposes a total ban on animal studies.
This trend of banning testing on animals has already gained steam in Europe for cosmetic products, and this has allowed cosmetic companies to push more and more products that humans unwittingly apply 24/7, not knowing that the items have not been tested for their suitability for long-term usage.
The next step is advocating taking an animal-testing ban to the point that life-saving drugs should also be pushed directly to humans, without even an assurance that an animal did not die after taking the drug. I see only the companies making the products as the main beneficiaries of this argument, saving millions, potentially billions of dollars by not having to prove the safety of the product in animal testing.
Girish Shah, professor, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Laval University
What get’s funding
Re In Bid To Keep Funding, Charities Sign Ontario School Board’s Pledge To Follow Catholic Doctrine (March 21): Jack Fonseca, a spokesman for the Campaign Life Coalition, justifies the decision by the Halton Catholic District School Board not to provide or facilitate financial support to charities that support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices by stating that “Under Catholic teachings, it’s very clear no Catholic dollars should be supporting organizations even indirectly which support a culture of death.”
To which I must reply that under secular teachings, it’s very clear that no secular dollars (our taxes) should be spent supporting a culture of misogyny and homophobia. Defund the Catholic school system now.
Jeff Fairless, Kanata, Ont.
Sir Humphrey’s insights
Re Yes To PR (March 21): A letter writer says that during the weeks and sometimes months while politicians try to form coalition governments under the PR system, “the civil service keeps the government operational for extended periods … ”
But that is what Yes, Minister’s Sir Humphrey has been telling us for years!
Richard Seymour, Brechin, Ont.