'The Meaning of Michelle': Readers speculated how the new First Lady will shape the world's image of African-American women. Some anticipated the crumbling of stereotypes. "I never once considered Michelle Obama 'too brown'," one said, adding that she's a role model "for her brains and compassion." Overseas voices joined in. A reader from France wrote, "She'll be a positive icon for constituencies at home and abroad." Back home, another reader insisted that Obama would be "the First Lady of all Americans, no matter their race, creed or ethnicity."
On 'Letter? I Never Got Any Letter, Herbert': "What FDR could not tell a frightened nation was that we were in part creating our own nightmares by selling off our stocks and running on the banks. Crowd psychology can trump actual economics."
Tom Lamore, Woodland, Calif.
The New First Lady
Thanks to Allison Samuels for her insightful article on Michelle Obama and her role-model status for African-American women ("What Michelle Means to Us," Dec. 1). I am a white, 40-something woman, and Michelle Obama is a role model for my demographic as well. I, too, came from a working-class family in a diverse neighborhood and put myself through college. I've spent years in corporate boardrooms, I have gotten into trouble now and then for speaking my mind. I, too, put my child first while trying to balance motherhood and career. We may have a different skin color, but I feel a strange, strong kinship with Michelle Obama. The modern American woman—race notwithstanding—has arrived.
Kate Ditewig
Peoria, Ill.
I disagree with the way Allison Samuels so bluntly divides the American constituency into being either African-American or "everyone else." The statement is irresponsible not only because it ignores the fact that blacks haven't been the only American minority group for a long time, but it's also at odds with Barack Obama's inclusive philosophy.
Grace Rodriguez
Laguna Niguel, Calif.
While I didn't vote for Barack Obama, I realize Michelle Obama will be a historic and dynamic First Lady. Yet reading "What Michelle Means to Us" made me think, Here we go again. What if Michelle were lighter-skinned, Asian or Caucasian (as her husband's mother was)? Would Allison Samuels and her friends be less smitten by Michelle? Do her accomplishments matter more because she's "brown, real brown"? What if the opposite were true? Would she be less of a "girlfriend" or "regular sister"? So, following that logic, Michelle's skin tone makes her black enough and better at understanding and relating to other black people. Really? This topic has been studied, reported and debated ad infinitum. The color of our skin, texture of our hair and features on our faces are out of anyone's control. Why it keeps coming up in articles like these is because we black folks—or African-Americans, if you prefer—keep the stereotypes alive.
Victoria Ashford
Helena, Ala.
Rachel Maddow
'
s Rapid Rise
My political views fall well left of center, so I have welcomed the likes of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, among others, to the broadcast spectrum ("When Left Is Right," Dec. 1). They are a much-needed counterbalance to the mean-spirited, facts-challenged, knee-jerk, far-right conservative media of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly et al. However, the media hosts coming from the left—particularly Maddow and Olbermann—need to realize that their frequently sarcastic, mocking, snarky presentations bring them down to the level of their right-wing counterparts. After a while, they will be preaching to a very small choir, because most liberals—including me—will be unable to take it. And they are giving those in the middle ground, or just right of it, ample reason to disregard their views as just more divisive chatter of the type this country is sick and tired of hearing.
Gary Meyer
Clinton, N.Y.
What to Do With Nuclear Waste?
"Sound Politics," as your Dec. 1 article "Obama's Nuclear Reservations" described it, is actually what created the $9 billion hole in the side of Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Back in 1987, politically powerful members of Congress managed to steer the nuclear-waste repository away from their states and directly into Nevada. Science had nothing to do with the selection, but science and common sense will prevail. The reasons for ending the taxpayer boondoggle called Yucca Mountain are plentiful: years of flawed science; unrealistic assumptions about costs conservatively predicted to hit $100 billion; and the egregious error of burying waste that could potentially, with American innovation, be less dangerous and even turned into energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely on site for at least 100 years in dry cask storage. That leaves plenty of time to fund and develop new technologies to safely manage nuclear waste. Our country is not so flush with endless funds or energy that it would make any sense to permanently bury almost $100 billion and a potential energy source. Let's leave the waste where it is for now and invest a fraction of that money in studying safe and common-sense alternatives to a national repository. We're confident the payoff will be worthwhile for all Americans.
Sen. John Ensign(r-nev.)Sen. Harry Reid(d-nev.)
Washington, D.C.
As a nuclear engineer, I am compelled to point out a serious omission. You forgot to mention reprocessing, which is precisely why nuclear power works well in France. They have no waste problem because more than 90 percent of nuclear-reactor fuel is recyclable, likely making it the most "green" of all energy sources. The French have been recycling their fuel through reprocessing for decades; even Japan has a new plant, and similar operations can be found worldwide. The only country not reprocessing its nuclear fuel, and hence creating more nuclear waste, is the United States, which is quite amazing.
Glenn E. Sjoden, Associate Professor
University of Florida
Gainesville, Fla.