The Riddle of Cancer Relapse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/magazine/31Cancer-t.html?scp=1&sq=mukherjee&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Subject: re: The Riddle of Cancer Relapse
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

      Whether or not "cancer stem cells" drive cancer--and that proposal is still hotly debated--part of Dr. Mukherjee's argument is clearly wrong.  There is no therapeutic benefit to be had in discriminating between killing such a cancer stem cell and killing the rest of the cancer.  It is quite hard enough to "discriminate between normal and malignant cells" in treating cancers without adding artificial constraints. Give me a drug that kills all the cancer cells and I'm satisfied that any "cancer stem cells" are dead--and the cancer non-stem cells won't be missed.

Barry Levine

Don’t Aid Hariri Tribunal, Hezbollah Warns

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/world/middleeast/29lebanon.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=don't%20aid%20hariri%20tribunal&st=cse

- Hide quoted text -

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Subject: re:Don’t Aid Hariri Tribunal, Hezbollah Warns
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    Hassan Nasrallah has a clearer view of Lebanon's past than of her future. In 2006, he conceded that Hezbollah wouldn't have seized those two Israel soldiers if he had known that Israel would respond by waging war on Lebanon. Now he warns that the tribunal investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri must be stopped. We are left to complete the thought--that the tribunal would find Hezbollah's involvement. 

    Politics in Lebanon is a difficult as it is anywhere in the world, but some truths are universal. If any group reserves the right to assassinate the nation's elected leaders, you have only the name of a nation, and not a nation.

Barry Levine

Short Sales Resisted as Foreclosures Are Revived

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/25short.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Subject: re: Short Sales Resisted as Foreclosures Are Revived
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   Our current law requires the bank to choose: either they foreclose and get the house (valued at its last sale price) as an asset, or they allow the short sale and get their principal back.  Since banks aren't making a lot of loans recently, they don't need the capital.  It serves them better to keep the housing market inflated by claiming that the house is still worth what it brought on the market a couple of years ago.  This fiction--that the asset is worth more than anyone is willing to pay for it--has to die for us to return to a healthy housing market and a healthy economy.

Barry Levine

How to Really End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=dellinger&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Subject: re: How to Really End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   If, as mr. Dellinger implies, our Department of Justice is motivated to appeal the court's rejection of DADT by a zeal to execute the will of Congress, other expectations follow. The Congress of the U.S. has ratified,e.g. treaties obliging us to prosecute or extradite those who torture.  Why does our Department of Justice leap to enforce one law, but not the other?  Are we really to believe that enforcing the bigotry of some individuals in our Armed Forces is a value greater than protecting human dignity and human lives? It seems that Justice is not blind to political calculation.

Barry Levine

Don’t Follow the Money

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=don't%20follow%20the%20money&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Subject: re: Don’t Follow the Money
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   Mr. Brooks' analysis would be apt if representative democracy ended at the ballot box; it does not. I am represented not when my man goes to Washington, but when he votes my positions on the bills that come before congress.  If he believes--rightly or wrongly--that he will need money from telecom corporations to get re-elected, he is likely to vote to immunize those corporations from civil suits, whether his constituents want him to or not. Likewise, if my president believes that he'll need money from telecom corporations for his re-election, he is unlikely to direct his Attorney General to prosecute violations of the FISA statute.

    Follow the money. Corporations are spending millions to get their way in our legislation and in our courts, whether they get to name the players or not.

Barry Levine

Obama Seeks Stay on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/us/politics/15military.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=administration%20seeks%20stay%20of%20ruling&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Subject: re: Obama Seeks Stay on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Ruling
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   On July 26, 1948 president Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981. With the stroke of a pen, he banned discrimination based on race, religion or national origin throughout the U.S. Armed Forces, years ahead of the rest of American society. If president Obama wants to play politics, he should go on blaming a paralyzed congress for not repealing "DADT". If he wants to end a policy that he campaigned against--and that the court has judged unconstitutional--he should follow the established precedent. He is the commander-in-chief; the buck stops with him.

Barry Levine

Gains in Afghan Training, but Struggles in War

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/world/asia/13kabul.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Subject: re: Gains in Afghan Training, but Struggles in War
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   While the U.S. media were all atwitter in 2007 over "the surge" in Iraq, general Petraeus' strategy was balkanizing the armed forces there. The creation of the (all Sunni) "awakening councils"  simultaneously sucked Sunnis out of the national army, making that in effect a Shiite sectarian force. These two are now poised to tear Iraq apart as soon as the U.S. moves out.  Is this the model that general Petraeus is now bringing to Afghanistan? It succeeded in suppressing the daily deathtoll in Iraq; it is the long-term cost of a renewed civil war in Afghanistan that should concern us.

Barry Levine

Allies in War, but the Goals Clash

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/weekinreview/10cooper.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=allies%20in%20war%20but%20the%20goals%20clash&st=cse

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Subject: re: Allies in War, but the Goals Clash
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    Missing from the analysis of Pakistan's (or should we say Kayani's?) motives are the aspirations of the Pashtuns.  If the Pashtun minority fail to impose their rule on Afghanistan, they may bid for an independent state. Since a majority of Pashtun live in Pakistan, their ambitions  may threaten Pakistan's integrity.  Until Americans learn to weigh tribal politics, we will be ineffectual in both war and diplomacy in this region.