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
.............................................................................................................................
Apocalyptic promise
Re U.S., North Korea Trade Threats Of Attack (Aug. 9): To quote "President" Donald Trump: "They will be met with fire, fury and frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before." I guess this guy has never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Danny Matenko, Toronto
.........................................
How awkwardly ironic, the similarities between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump. Both love their adoring minions. Both speak first, think later. Thankfully, China's Xi Jinping has his hand on the switch that controls the oil and gas fuelling North Korea.
Casimir Galas, Toronto
.........................................
The statements emanating from enemy-du-jour Kim Jong-un might not be all that sparked Donald Trump's apocalyptic promise of "fire and fury." Mr. Trump, who needs so much to be loved, likely has an eye on the historical ratings of his predecessors.
Attacking another nation has often been good for U.S. presidents. John F. Kennedy's ratings increased after the Bay of Pigs invasion (even though it was a failure). Ronald Reagan, to deflect from American failures in Lebanon, only days later launched Operation Urgent Fury at Grenada (then, population 91,000) and announced, "Our days of weakness are over!" George W. Bush's ratings had a large positive bump after he sent troops into Iraq in quest of weapons of mass destruction that existed only in his advisers' minds.
For Mr. Trump, whose persona has been so much defined by television, it's natural that ratings might drive his decision-making.
Ab Dukacz, Mississauga
.........................................
To be a scientist
I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading arguments by Margaret Wente and Debra Soh about the impact of gender on one's ability to be a scientist (How Biased Are Hiring Decisions?, Aug. 8; No, The Google Manifesto Isn't Sexist. It's Science, Aug. 9).
As a professor of chemistry in the area of nanotechnology, I have had the joy of directly supervising more than 35 PhD students, acting on supervisory committees for several hundred more, and teaching close to 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students.
The diversity of personalities, skills, interests and inherent motivations across any swath of people far outweighs any artificial classification of "women are like this" and "men are like that," when it comes to science. The traits required to be a good scientist are a mishmash of stereotypically male and female characteristics. We need the best people, and that means looking beyond these sadly dated classifications.
Canadian science is declining due to a decade of continued underfunding, which is extremely disconcerting since our country needs homegrown expertise to confront continued threats to our well-being.
Talking often about bias, in all its forms, in science is absolutely essential to doing science properly as all humans are inherently biased. To not openly discuss bias, such as gender bias, could discourage our best and brightest from doing science for the betterment of our country and the world, simply because they do not fit someone's stereotype of what a scientist is supposed to look like. That is truly tragic.
Jillian Buriak, professor of chemistry, Canada Research Chair of Nanomaterials for Energy, University of Alberta
.........................................
James Damore says in his Google memo that "My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
Gosh, what an intolerant bigot!
Eric de Vos, Canmore, Alta.
.........................................
Robotic logic
Re How Ontario Put The Future Of Robotic Surgery In Question (Aug. 8): Officials at Health Quality Ontario (HQO) consulted four urologists and a general surgeon, and disagreed with their clinical judgment, opining that robot-assisted surgery offered no benefit above open prostate surgery, or at least not worth the added cost to provincial health care.
In Vancouver, 212 patients were willing to pay the extra cost of the robot-assisted surgery until the federal government put an end to that practice. If HQO is correct that robot-assisted surgery is no better regarding cancer care and surgical morbidity, then the 212 patients paid privately for a more cosmetic surgery. Or perhaps federal bureaucrats believe robot-assisted surgery may indeed offer benefits not captured in the lone randomized study, but if it can't be offered to all, then it should be offered to none?
Whatever the reasoning, the entrenched bureaucrats overseeing the collection of provincial health insurance premiums, and rationing of health-care benefits, have adopted the managed-care practice of bringing providers to the table, only to ignore their advice, while limiting patients' choice. This kind of thinking has resulted in psychiatric care being shifted to jailers, long-term elder care being delivered in acute care hospitals, access to home care based on the lottery of one's postal code, and the national embarrassment that is care of First Nations people.
Of course, scrutiny can always be deflected from administrators by trotting out the ministers of health to blame the militant nursing unions and greedy doctors.
Stephen Halman, orthopedic surgeon, Toronto
.........................................
Lower the limit
Re Amid Court Backlogs, Justice Minister Seeks Lower Alcohol Limit (Aug. 9): The government thought, in 1969, that a blood-alcohol limit for drivers of .08 would mean double, double!, the number of deaths compared with sober drivers, and somehow that was acceptable. Now research shows it means triple, triple!, the number of deaths.
Whose lives are expendable, an acceptable loss, that governments knowingly allow this? Set the allowable limit to where there is a zero increase in the number of deaths. Nothing else is acceptable.
As for increasing the backlog in the courts, find a way to deal with it. Ditto for restaurants and bars.
Lisa Snyder, Toronto
.........................................
More veggies, please
Perhaps the reason we "love to hate" certain veggies has more to do with upbringing than cooking technique (Four Vegetables We Love To Hate And How To Cook Them Right, Life & Arts, Aug. 9).
When she had her first child, our daughter thought there was no reason sweet things should be offered as treats and gave her daughter lightly steamed carrots and peas, among other savoury items, as small special snacks. For our granddaughter's fourth birthday, we had roast chicken, her favourite meal, and her remark during that meal has become part of family lore: "Nana, if I eat all my chicken, can I have some more broccoli?"
She and her sister still love broccoli trees, as well as most other vegetables – though desserts are now also high on their list of "treats."
Avril Taylor, Dundas, Ont.