TO THE EDITOR:

I read the confused mixture of "gosh that's just not fair" social notions and economic fantasy contained in the letter ("Free trade simply hurts poor countries," Nov. 4).

The key to economic progress is to have political and economic models that allow and protect individual liberty and freedom. If you can't make something affordable, manufacturing goes elsewhere or it becomes extinct, as many buggy-whip companies found out when Henry Ford cranked up his production line. The letter writer would reason that Ford was the problem. Yet, it was entrepreneurs who raise the standard of living across the world by the mass employment, production and trade of affordable goods. Free trade is opportunity for everyone.

Naive notions of a "living wage" are devoid of economic reality. "Fair share" mentality promulgates the zero sum belief that an economy is analogous to a box of brownies and if someone gets two brownies, then somebody has to eat the box. The epic economic growth over the past century has proven free-market economies to be infinitely expandable - there is plenty of brownie mix for everyone.

Your local savings and loan does not lend money to unemployed gamblers with a credit history of loan defaults - unfortunately the International Monetary Fund and World Bank do, and this only encourages bad economic choices and behavior.

People now making $2,000 - $3,000 a year in a country where national per capita income is $300 are happy for improved circumstances and opportunity. They are learning new skills and disciplines as well as marketplace imperatives, the seeds of which will germinate many times over by new "Henry Ford" entrepreneurs. Many countries have high standards of living that were not blessed with a natural wealth of resources, the common denominator for success is the political and economic systems employed. So long as there is economic and political freedom, standards of living will rise, infrastructure and stability will develop and corresponding societal elements both good and bad will accompany that progress.

Rex Murphy, West Chester

---

Electoral College must be reformed

The tears of the families of the men killed in the helicopter downing were shown on TV. The widows were holding their children. President Bush did not speak of them on his trip to boost his political agenda and raise money at a $2,000-a-plate-fundraiser.

This is our president that received a half million votes fewer than Al Gore. Why are we here?

The answer is our undemocratic way of picking our president - the Electoral College. The vote in the Electoral College is determined by each state getting one vote for each representative and one vote for each senator: Wyoming gets three votes - one for its representative and two for its senators. California gets a vote based on population for its representative, but still only two votes for its senators. The result was that in the last election the choice of the people was not elected; we got Bush instead. The Electoral College needs to be changed by removing the vote for each senator so that elections represent the will of the people.

Grant Langdon, Madisonville

---

Why talk to those clueless on politics?

I am speechless at the article by Carl Weiser that appeared on the front page of the Enquirer on Nov. 3 ("They could dictate who wins in 2004"). Katie Freshley, 21, says she favors "Anybody but Bush" in the next presidential election, but she's unable to name any of the Democratic candidates trying to unseat him.

Please explain why you would choose to interview and quote someone who is so extremely ignorant of the political process, much less put it on the front page, picture and all. Why not interview someone who has taken the time and effort to study the candidates and what they stand for, i.e., informed choice?

Is this typical of the young voters today who are going to the polls so uninformed? It is an abuse of our freedom. With every right comes a responsibility.

Joann Kamphaus, Mount Washington

---

Writer took argument over flag to extreme

In regards to the letter "Flag flap: Student should follow rules (Nov. 4"), exercised his right of freedom of speech.

Has he forgotten about how on September 11, 2003, the groundbreaking ceremony for the Liberty Garden Project at the Vietnam Memorial in Eden Park, that we "celebrated our freedoms and honored the liberties for which so many have lived and died"?

If it weren't for the men and woman of this country that have fought and died for the right to fly our flag and what it stands for, the writer wouldn't be able to send his letter to the editor and exercise his right to freedom of speech.

It is a shame that in order to get a little recognition, the writer must find it necessary to liken displaying the American flag with the right to display a Ku Klux Klan flag.

The American flag that the students were displaying (and have the right to) is the prettiest banner I have ever seen, and it still gives me the chills and makes me stand tall any time and every time I see it.

My congratulations to the two fine young men at Saint Louis University for fighting for their rights in a world where diversity allows a liberal point of view to be published.

Saint Louis University has agreed to exempt the flying of the American flag from their rules of engagement.

Dave Hoers, Western Hills

---

Cut deductions for ads and watch 'em wither

In regards to the unwanted e-mail, telemarketers and other advertising intrusions into our lives - ("Go away! We don't want to be bothered" and Jim Borgman's cartoon "Do not disturb," Nov. 2) - here's a simple solution:

Advertising is fully deductible as a business expense under the federal tax code. In other words, we, the people, are subsidizing the unwanted advertising that we, the people, are bombarded with.

Why not make advertising expenses only 50 percent deductible, like meals and entertainment?

I'm told the federal government has a big budget deficit. This idea could relieve the federal deficit while causing businesses to restrain themselves from the obscene advertising expenditures, which try to sell us stuff we don't need and don't want.

All it takes is political courage, folks, to kill two fat and ugly birds at the same time.

Dave Hester, West Chester Township

---

Designated hitter: best rule of century

Of all the myriad rules and regulations governing Major League Baseball during a century of World Series play, the greatest was the adoption of the designated hitter rule in the American League. The purists disdain this rule and seek to have it removed. But who is to say what is pure and what is not after a century of changes? ... After all, who wants to see a pitcher who is masterful on the mound, but who struggles at the plate?

The worst rule, by far, is the existence of a wild card team in the division playoff series. This is an outright abomination. Wild cards should be confined to sports like football and basketball. The major leagues should be restructured to reduce the divisions back to two. This would eliminate three to five playoff games. Along the way, maybe some teams should be relegated to minor league status - or disbanded.

In the season just completed, the Boston Red Sox were the wild card in the American League. They just couldn't win their division, competing with their old nemeses - the Yankees. The National League wild card was the Florida Marlins - an upstart team that has never been a division champion.

And what about the teams whose domicile is under a dome? In addition to "home park advantage," they have the added advantage of crowd noise, which raises the decibel level up to that of a rock concert - to the discomfiture of visiting teams (Hey, what about the equal protection clause?).

Woodrow Cummins, Burlington