In response to "Thousand Points of Light," editorial, Oct. 9:
I was personally disturbed by the dripping sarcasm you held for children who come from "tree-lined suburbs" who you feel "munch Dove bars in front of MTV." Perhaps their mothers watch soap operas all day, hair in curlers, eating bonbons?
Though it may sound corny, many Americans still aspire to the goal of home ownership in the suburbs, and find no fault in the set of values that this represents. On the other hand, it is the point of view of The Times that these people have a hedonistic malaise, and that a loftier vision would be to propagate programs that offer "basic needs that only can be provided by government." I'm sure most people would be hard pressed to name any needs that can be solely addressed by government, though I doubt this would strain your editorialists.
After more than 25 years of aggressive social spending, our nation reportedly has more poor and needy than before. This hasn't been lost on many Americans, who in turn become frustrated by the relentless appeal to constantly increase this form of government spending.
Your editorial would have hit a more ubiquitously responsive chord had it been run in the '60s rather than today. As such it wouldn't have to contend with the bankrupt social record that many of the programs have left in their wake.