Letters to the editor for Thursday, Jan. 24

So if the country just starts spending again, we will nip this recession in the bud, or so say the feds.

What is different about this economy, from when I was a student in the '60s? The school curriculum included art, music and phy ed; activity buses chauffeured us free of charge. College was affordable. In 1969, Century College, then Lakewood Junior College, was $5 per credit. Health care benefits were available even at part-time jobs.

Credit cards existed, but were a convenience for businessmen. We indulged in an ancient practice called layaway, which employed a concept called delayed gratification. Here's how it worked: You chose an item you wanted, put some money down, and the store held it for you while you made payments. You did not possess the item until it was fully paid for!

Now, every family has its own personal instrument of instant gratification, the credit card, and as a result the economy is floating on a sea of debt. No longer can we afford to invest in our schools and infrastructure. Just how does a tax rebate solve this problem? Why not give a tax break to folks who pay down their credit card debt? That idea is so naïve as to be hilarious, isn't it?

Americans realize the credit card industry controls Congress, not vice versa, and we accept this with cynicism and resignation. But if anything is going to change, it has to start with us realizing that we cannot be placated forever with more possessions. Are we really happier than we were in the '60s? In the long view, we need to reduce our consumption and start saving and investing in America again.

MARILYN ULRICH, ST. PAUL

It is unsettling to read about the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lowering its standard for the amount of the chemical acetochlor allowed in our state's rivers (Star Tribune, Jan. 22). This lowering of the standard was based on six studies brought to the MPCA by two major chemical companies -- Dow and Monsanto.

DARLENE M. OLSON, ST. LOUIS PARK

I'm a little surprised at the biased tone of your Jan. 12 article regarding the Snelling Avenue median proposed by Macalester College. A small amount of fact checking would help provide a more balanced perspective.

First, although you reported correctly that the majority of comments collected were in favor of the project, you failed to mention that the majority of the comments were from individuals with Macalester connections who live outside the neighborhood. The majority of the comments from neighborhood residents asked for changes to accommodate access to the neighborhood and local businesses.

Also unmentioned in your article is that the proposed 10-foot-wide landscaped median would eliminate parking, which would encourage higher speeds and impair a driver's ability to see pedestrians as well as local business signage and that Macalester rejected a 6-foot-wide nonlandscaped median which would not eliminate parking or reduce visibility; that Macalester rejected a neighborhood proposal to put in a stoplight at Fairmount similar to the stoplight that now exists at Jefferson just south of the area under study; and that a similar median on Grand has actually made it more dangerous to cross Grand by encouraging students to jaywalk rather than cross at crosswalks.

While there is neighborhood support for some way to make crossing Snelling Avenue safer, the current Macalester proposal would actually increase traffic speeds, block access to the neighborhood and local businesses and make it more difficult for motorists to see pedestrians and local businesses.

Your Jan. 21 headline "Israel leaves Gaza in the dark" strongly implies Israel is to blame for a total Gaza blackout.

Possible justification of the 70 percent of Gaza's electricity supplied directly by Israel is not reported until the sixth paragraph of the story. This follows mentioning cutting electricity to maternity wards and reports of dying patients -- apparently the electricity Gaza receives is being used for better purposes, like supporting the rocket attacks on Israel (mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 10).

Once again your unedited use of biased Associated Press reporting makes it look like a U.S. democratic ally is bad and a terrorist organization is good. Why? Did you consider a more accurate headline, like "Israel retaliates; part of Gaza dark"?

ARTHUR GLASSMAN, GOLDEN VALLEY

The proposal to reimburse kidney donors as a "new and innovative response" to our donor shortage crisis has problems. Such a program is justified because the insurance companies are willing to fund it, and the transplant program director is in favor of it and some dialysis patients will receive kidneys earlier to, perhaps, save their lives.

Can the statement that a transplant "dramatically" improves the well-being and lifespan of the recipient be supported? Are the five- and 10-year survival rates for transplant recipients that much better than for matched dialysis patients? And is the creation of a class of poor one-kidney people worth it? We should consider (almost any) other assistance programs.