The artist disagrees\nWhile I, as a musician myself, agree with your editors on the fact that Internet downloads are a fact of life these days, I feel your critique ignored a crucial fact in these artists' arguments against iTunes. Q Prime Management Company and those others who have removed songs from iTunes (including reputable artists like The Beatles) are not saying that, and I quote your article ("Death of the album?" July 14), "the selling or sharing of music on the Internet" is contributing to the demise of the album. Rather, they simply disagree with the iTunes managers who have said that only single songs will be sold. These artists have asked that iTunes package their songs as albums, not as singles. Essentially saying, if you want the song, buy them all, for still a lower price than in a store. In your article you made it look like their issue is simply a few artists raving against progress. Rather, they're just fighting for their right to have their entire piece of art heard, rather than just the Clear Channel! ready snippets. And as an artist, I feel their voice should at least be heard, rather than having us simply mocking their opinions as "stale."
Johnathan Sanders\nTell City, Ind.
The game of elderly politics on driving \nIn the opinion article titled "You're old, you drive, you lose" (July 21), the writer, Paige Gray, states, "I don't understand why this law isn't in effect everywhere," regarding mandatory driving and vision tests for the elderly to renew their license. The answer to this is simple -- the elderly make up a large percentage of voters. They might not outnumber other age groups but they vote more and the politicians know this. With re-election a high priority for politicians, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they went against the elderly on such a widespread bill. So, it may make complete sense to you and me to enact legislation to ensure the safety of elderly drivers, and everyone else on the road, but politicians aren't going to go against the elderly. It's the same reason Social Security is usually a platform for national elections. This issue is the exact reason people need to vote on a regular basis. Also, Gray states, "It is not prejudiced toward an age group, it is merely taking a safety precaution." This is her, and my, opinion but doing this is asking a group to regulate themselves which usually doesn't work out too well. We see this in asking politicians to regulate themselves, and the results on both sides of the spectrum are pathetic at best.
David Graham\nJunior
'Non-partisan' views need to be re-evaluated \nThis is in response to Jim Harper's column ("A healthy dose of skepticism," July 26). I read both books and let me say first that I am a staunch centrist. I make my decisions based on the facts and don't follow either right or left ideology. I'm not a partisan and I do follow politics closely. That being said, you should examine your political views more closely. It is evident to anyone reading your column that you lean to the left merely in your statement, "People like Coulter and to a lesser degree Moore, who would bend the attacks and make personal attacks just to further their own views, are abusing the public trust." You say to a lesser degree Moore, but in fact Michael Moore is just as venomous in his slander and truth bending as is Ann Coulter. If you really want to be the type of journalist America needs, one that is truly "fair and balanced," you would report the facts as they are and not attempt to bend the facts. The reader doesn't care who you like more (Moore). Or maybe you should read both books again from a truly non-partisan standpoint and then tell us that Michael Moore is less slanderous.
Charles Nelson Levee\nBloomington
