Mr. Singer speaks of a better world through sharing and understanding, but his platitudes in this area have given him a reputation that does not expose him for what he is. Any moral and right-thinking human must be repelled by the hideous and bizarre philosophy of this man. Equally bizarre is how he can be accorded the title and station he enjoys at Princeton. It must be true: The lunatics are running the asylum.

Dick Kukowski
Beach, N.D.

Mr. Singer responds:
Mr. Kukowski seems to think that anyone who holds moral views that contrast sharply with his own should not occupy a chair at a university. Perhaps that is how Christian fundamentalists and Islamic mullahs run what they call “universities.” Fortunately, a different ideal of a university, one in which students learn by assessing reasoned arguments for different positions, is still alive and well. If your readers are interested in an account of my views that is both more accurate than that offered by Mr. Kukowski and—more importantly—one that indicates why I hold the views that I do hold, I urge them to consult one of my books, such as Practical Ethics or Writings on Ethical Life. They can then judge for themselves whether or not I am a “lunatic.”

Peter Singer
Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics
University Center for Human Values
Princeton University

Dear Editor:
“Strike Up the Brand” (October 2004, page 38) is the most appalling article I have ever read. The use of prescription drugs should be driven by what is best for the patient as determined by a competent physician, not by Madison Avenue executives with TV advertising and sales people, who often lack a background in science. Big pharma should earn its keep and find some respect by competing with price and by coming up with more truly innovative drugs rather than being so dependent on government-funded research.

The author is very proud that “. . . AstraZenca was able to leverage the brand equity of Prilosec and shift it to Nexium.” He thinks that it would be great if “. . . AstraZenca could bring the power of purple to arthritis and other conditions.” Some of us consumers have a better idea: What if AstraZenca or some other big pharma company could bring us a more effective arthritis medicine at a cheaper price? Evidently that sort of competition must be too bothersome and far less profitable than bringing sick people “the power of purple.”

John T. Jensen
Anchorage, Alaska

Dear Editor:
Ian Ayres’ idea on campaign donation (“Anonymously Yours,” November 2004, page 32) is a fine one, but it does little to meet the real problem in campaign finance. He with the most money usually wins. I would suggest two alternatives. Solution 1 would be a finance cap. Depending on the political office, limits could be set, and the candidate would be obliged to spend within that limit. Solution 2 would limit candidates’ exposure on broadcast media to community service airtime. Radio and TV stations would offer airtime to all candidates equally or based upon polling numbers, just as the presidential election selects candidates for the television debate. Perhaps a combination of spending limits and broadcast advertising might be a useful reform. One thing is for certain: Current campaign spending is way out of hand and the smear tactics that ensue are turning more voters off.

Mitch Lichterman
President, loanguy.com
Los Angeles, Calif.

Dear Editor:
I read the article “Early to Rise” (October 2004, page 50). For a youngster, the author, Douglas Barry, seems quite perceptive. While I enjoyed the article, I took great umbrage with his statement that, “We lose sight of our true desires, compromise our interests, and settle for less than we originally hoped. We grow up.”