To the Editor:
Re “Americans Are More United Than We Think,” by Kristen Soltis Anderson (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 1):
Ms. Anderson deploys polling numbers to ostensibly present how in settlement People are on basic questions (e.g., skepticism of mass media, dissatisfaction with our democracy, and so on.).
Greater than as soon as, I’ve been startled that pundits, noting enormous will increase in People agreeing that the nation is on the “mistaken monitor,” current it as settlement. Lacking is the plain follow-up: Why do respondents suppose the nation is on the mistaken monitor? Or that the mass media is failing us?
That follow-up is the place the actual data is: These respondents who imagine that the media is failing as a result of it’s too “woke” are unlikely to agree on just about something with those that imagine it’s failing as a result of it kowtows to the far proper.
Ms. Anderson is a Republican pollster who as such might be determined to seek out tea leaves telling her that People are actually not in a digital civil conflict. But when People have been unified, how would we arrive at an election by which, with campaigns emphasizing diametrically reverse values, beliefs and insurance policies, the outcomes for president have been extraordinarily shut?
Jill Raymond
Silver Spring, Md.
To the Editor:
The elemental causes which have produced the widespread cynicism about establishments and even our democracy itself are the results of many years of propaganda by the novel proper in opposition to authorities. This marketing campaign has permeated the consciousness of many People who’re on the lookout for simplistic solutions to their very own misfortunes.
What has exacerbated the issue is that many of those people have been radicalized to such an extent that they’re now not all for significant reform, however as a substitute have tailored a burn-it-all-down ideology that Donald Trump and his MAGA motion characterize.
On the left, the cynicism about authorities pertains to the truth that folks don’t have any religion in a Trump administration to manipulate, as a result of not solely do the MAGA adherents not imagine in institutional democracy, however they’re additionally horrible at it and truly undermine it at each flip.
So it’s no surprise that there’s a adverse consensus about authorities amongst folks on either side, however for various causes. That is hardly one thing to have fun. It simply demonstrates how far Ms. Anderson has to go to rationalize the deplorable polarization into which we’ve descended.
John McElligott
Honest Garden, N.J.
To the Editor:
Kristen Soltis Anderson’s opinion piece should be one of many saddest commentaries on America ever revealed: a dystopian portrait of a society’s unification round dissatisfaction, driving help for a populist chief who’s a megaphone for that dissatisfaction. One can solely hope for a day when People acknowledge and unite across the constructive in our establishments and search to carry each other larger collectively.
To the Editor:
Re “Why I Would Never Donate Sperm in the United States,” by Gary Nunn (Opinion visitor essay, nytimes.com, Dec. 21), in regards to the downsides of nameless sperm donation:
I’ve directed an egg donation and surrogacy program for a few years. Legal guidelines requiring disclosure of figuring out data a few years after donation have actual (and maybe unintended) adverse sensible penalties.
To make sure, the variety of prepared sperm and egg donors would plummet if id disclosure have been mandated. This could imply far fewer selections for fogeys, and extra strain on clinics to simply accept candidates who’re open to releasing their id, however who could also be on the margins of medical qualification.
We’ve got seen in England the ramifications of pressured id launch: prolonged ready durations for donor gametes, and egg donors who’re nonetheless in a position to take part nicely into their 30s (which suggests extra medical threat).
Few mother and father admire the flip facet of id launch. A donor who’s required to share his or her identify and speak to data — and who is aware of {that a} little one could seem years later to “reunite” — would possibly need some shared data in return.
Donors should not delivery mother and father offering kids for adoption; they view their position as extra of a DNA supplier.
What number of meant mother and father are going to be OK with sharing their names and addresses with their sperm or egg donor?
Sanford M. Benardo
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
People who use sperm donation providers to start out or develop their households deserve essentially the most correct details about the method.
Nevertheless, Gary Nunn’s latest critique of sperm donation in america misrepresents the present state of the trade.
True anonymity in sperm donation is essentially a relic of the previous. Respected U.S. sperm banks permit donor-conceived people to attach with donors on the age of 18. Shopper DNA testing, like 23andMe, has additional diminished anonymity.
The writer did not level out that Australia’s restrictive donor insurance policies have led to extreme shortages, skyrocketing prices and lengthy wait lists, forcing households into unsafe shadow markets — hardly a mannequin to comply with.
Colorado’s latest laws mirrors Australia’s missteps and can disproportionately burden L.G.B.T.Q.+ households and others counting on donor sperm.
Restrictive insurance policies received’t scale back demand; they’ll solely drive it underground, endangering susceptible households.
The U.S. fertility system, whereas imperfect, stays dynamic, progressive, protected and centered on affected person alternative.
Michael Okay. Simoni
Marlton, N.J.
The author is a doctor specializing in reproductive endocrinology and infertility.
To the Editor:
Re “Roberts Condemns Threats to Judicial Independence” (information article, Jan. 2):
In his year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts decries the menace to judges posed by “an unstable particular person carrying a cache of weapons.”
Does the chief justice suppose that the specter of gun violence at present is exclusive to judges? Because of the Supreme Courtroom’s radical interpretation of the Second Modification, this similar threat is shared by all People, together with — and maybe particularly — younger kids in class.
The Supreme Courtroom ought to deal with these considerations by overturning District of Columbia v. Heller, not by complaining that the justices should share the identical considerations about gun violence that the courtroom has imposed on the remainder of us.
Lisa Christian
Denver
The author is a lawyer.
Too A lot Settlement
To the Editor:
“Feel Free to Agree With 73 Percent of This Column,” by Carlos Lozada (Jan. 5), captures one thing I had been espousing for my whole skilled profession. As a companion at a C.P.A. agency, I all the time needed the employees’s impartial concepts and ideas on the interpretation of varied issues involving tax legislation.
Every time I discovered somebody agreeing with me each time I’d invariably say, “If you happen to agree with me on a regular basis we’ve one too many individuals.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Lozada, I’ve seven phrases for you: I agree 100% together with your column!
Richard Lichtig
West Caldwell, N.J.
