‘Eurabian Civil War’

While Mark Steyn’s caustic wit might be a tad overwhelming for some of your more “genteel” readers, one would have to be living in a cave for the last four years (at the least) not to take his warnings seriously [“Eurabian Civil War,” Opinion, November 14, 2005].

His article cogently demonstrates both the vacuous and dangerous delusions of M. de Villepin’s prescriptions for what currently ails France. As Mark Steyn readily understands, demographics don’t lie, and, if ignored, just might kill you.

While the ever-irritating and totally incompetent French minister waxes poetic about the disenfranchisement of the “youths,” the imams in the suburbs are licking their chops. Where else, but in the Neverland thinking of France’s leaders, would a prescription for the ailment actually serve to exacerbate the disease?

ADINA KUTNICKI
Ridgewood, N.J.

‘Capitalizing on the Landslide’

In his article, “Capitalizing on the Landslide,” John P. Avlon writes: “The Republicans did manage to recruit a few strong candidates to run for City Council, most notably Dr. Joel Zinberg and Patrick Murphy on the Upper East Side and Pat Russo in Bay Ridge. All of these districts have had a history of electing Republicans in the past, but the local Democratic inertia has proved hard to break, and all three of these Republican candidates lost” [Opinion, November 11, 2005].

I know nothing about Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. But, I know a little about the Upper East Side. In Council Districts 4 and 5, where Dan Garodnick beat Patrick Murphy, and Jessica Lappin beat Dr. Zinberg, the difference in voter registration is not 5-to-1 but 5-to-2. Therefore, there are more than twice as many Republican voters on the East Side than there are throughout the rest of the city.

Accordingly, that Democrats were successful in retaining these Council seats, which many thought were vulnerable because the mayor could have coattails, was not the result of Democratic inertia but the fact that Democrats ran well known, well liked, and, well accomplished citizens of our community who put incredible work into making sure that Bloomberg Democrats would physically cross lines to vote for the best possible candidates rather than inertly doing what the mayor told them to.

BILLY STERNBERG
Manhattan

‘All A-Board’

Before editorializing about Amtrak “gobbl[ing] up $29 billion in federal taxpayer money since … 1971,” and how that justifies major changes in the company, the editors at The New York Sun should address the fact that public transportation in the U.S., with a few rare exceptions, is virtually nonexistent, and should receive more in federal subsidies than it does now [“All A-Board,” November 10, 2005].

Perhaps you could argue that the reason public transportation receives such a relatively paltry sum from the federal government is that our representatives and senators, having been bought and paid for by construction interests and auto manufacturers from day one, would rather pass pork-laden transportation bills to subsidize Americans’ ever-growing appetite for driving from nowhere to nowhere in giant SUVs (which we can now do on the so-called “bridge to nowhere”).

You could further argue, were you so inclined, that U.S. taxpayers would have been far better served by a federal government that spent more money on public transportation, thus reducing overall reliance on automobiles and fossil fuels. That would, in turn, have reduced the shock to the wallet that many Americans received when gasoline supplies dwindled and prices consequently skyrocketed in the 1970s and more recently.

Unfortunately, one might say, politicians are and have been far too fearful of being voted out of office to tell people the truth – that it is simply selfish to insist on driving everywhere in their private, comfortable cocoons of steel, plastic, leather and wood.

More intelligent, forward thinking and selfless representatives would have spent less on making it so easy to drive everywhere and more on making public transportation a viable, more widely available option, albeit one that is not as attractive as traveling in private luxury.

ROBERT RENZULLI
Manhattan

‘Autophagy of the Times’

I note with interest one reader’s reaction to your use of the word “autophagy” [Steven P. Scalici, Letters, November 2, 2005]. Due in part to my Catholic school education (Bishop Loughlin and Fordham – five years of Latin, one of Greek) it took no more than a few seconds to figure out auto and phagos – as related to events at another newspaper – to produce said word, meaning “self-devouring.”

So much study was fair exchange for a state akin to ecstasy which washed over my brain as I puzzled things out and put them together. Simply speaking, I was delighted.

Please don’t hesitate in future to indulge in the splendid use of the English language as it has evolved through the classical tongues. Even though it may drive some readers to the dictionary, it is a short, pleasant drive in most cases.

JOHN MILLUS
Woodside, N.Y.

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.