Readers React: Affirmative Action, Cancer Causes, Saudi Sins readers weighed in heavily on Wendy McElroy’s column attacking the inequalities of affirmative action, as well as Eric Burns’ piece on how the television networks sacrifice good journalism to attract and please viewers.

Readers also took issue with Ken Adelman’s column on Saudi ties to terrorism and to Steve Milloy’s argument that no substance has ever been proven to always cause cancer in all people.

In response to ifeminists:

Dan Ehrman writes:

There is some information that may have not been considered.  One of the points made in the article mentioned is entrance into college. It is common knowledge in the U.S. that the public schools in the inner cities, where the majority of minorities live, are poor and do not meet standards for suburban school districts. There has to be a balance between this "discrimination." 

Yes, the rich are entitled to a good education, but are the poor entitled to only a poor education? …if that discrimination is to be eliminated, the greater and much more rampant discrimination of the educational system at lower levels must be substantially reduced (and even eliminated, if that is possible). Yes, there is racism toward whites.  Yes, there is racism toward minorities. No, the sins of generations should not be a factor, but the racism of our own generation should! 

Dana Boyette writes:

As a woman, I too feel as though affirmative action is actually demeaning to women and minorities because it overlooks the character and qualities of the individuals. Any job should be offered to an individual because he or she is qualified for the job, not because of a "quota" the company must meet. 

Mark Copeland writes:

I like that finally it is being pointed out that instead of focusing on the past and trying to correct every wrong, we indeed need to focus on the present and the future.  Discrimination is discrimination no matter who it is imposed against. Back in history, they used to justify it because of skin color. Now, we do the same thing.

Nathan Lowry writes:

To settle for something is to defeat yourself, and to not strive to make the world a better and equal place for everyone is sad.

Dale Williams writes:

If nothing is in place legally to assure people who continue to be discriminated against even long after Dr. King's idealistic speech -- and not just in the educational process -- what will cause whites to treat blacks equal?… There is no affirmative action in Hollywood, and what do we have? Obvious discrimination. There are many private companies with no affirmative action, and what do we have? Obvious discrimination.

In response to Fox News Watch:

Terri Endicott writes:

Who lowered the bar first?  Was it the public crying for trash or was it the entertainment and news media providing a steady diet of trash, and the public happens to watch because there isn't much else on?  Personally, I think if you "build it" they will come. If you "tear it down," they will begin to watch the higher quality shows you provide. I don't believe you can sit in your ivory tower and feel the pulse of the American wrist. If the entertainment and news media stop creating this tidal wave of sewage and raise the "quality" bar on their programming, America will respond. 

Rich writes:

The entertainment industry is always so quick and happy to brag about its success, but if you really look at the product beyond the package and the promotional methods, it is usually pathetic. Substitutions are made for quality. Journalism and all forms of media pander to viewers of bad taste because it's the easy buck. If the rest of us were pandered to successfully, the profits would be unprecedented, but those who produce our entertainment rarely want to work that hard.

Al Chinchar writes:

Interestingly, I’m noticing a new phenomenon whereby some people I know, including myself, are discovering that the more they know about a celebrity’s politics and intellect, the less inclined they are to pay any further attention to those celebs’ performances either on-screen or off. I mean, how can I watch another Winona movie without recalling a slightly drugged and wealthy young woman shoplifting her way through Saks?

William Davidson writes:

I'm just curious, though, as to whether it is the public's fault or if it is partly the liberal media putting this garbage in front of viewers in order to force mindless acceptance of their "anything goes" agenda. With all of the options provided by cable and satellite television, I just wonder how much of the population still only receives the "Big Three." If the Whitney interview is the only thing on, there aren't many options left for those who choose to watch it or just turn the TV off.

In response to Defense Central:

Carl M. King writes:

Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown.

Khew-Voon Chin writes:

You failed to include on your list the most important of all: the Saudis are also sowing the seeds of terrorism by financing madrasas that teach nothing but hatred of the West (Americans to be precise), intolerance of other religions, and the degradation of women.

Jeffrey Justice writes:

When we sell out the fundamental elements of our own system for things such as oil and strategic base locations, we ourselves erode world support and make the terrorist's recruiting job that much easier.

In response to Straight Talk:

George Rusling, Sr. writes:

Our federal constitution requires that our federal government enforce the maintenance of a "Republican form" of government at the state level, which should be responsive to the people, limiting police powers at the state level and negating any possibility of "untrammeled government power." That same constitution states in the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since SCOTUS is definitely a part of our federal government, that restriction applies to it. Until and unless SCOTUS can find some part of the constitution that either grants some power to the federal government or denies that power to the states, it has no authority to act.

John Dolan writes:

Let the states act, as they have, to reverse laws that are unwise, either by amending their state constitutions or by reforming legislation. Let them do that in the abortion arena and in the anti-sodomy arena. Law is important. We strive to be a nation of laws. People ignore that critical feature of our political system. They should live under regimes that don't have or don't live by law. Let's not invite our high court to corrupt itself and our system of law, even when we are advancing wise social policy.

In response to Junk Science:

Bill Henchel writes:

I believe that these "protective alerts" form a basis for leverage so that they not only can keep us in the dark, but can further regulate the stuffing out of us, for whatever variety of reasons. I concur that cancer risk is a blend of factors, not the least of which is the lousy diet that the Feds recommend.