H. Ronald (Letters, July 31) wants three reasons why Kevin Rudd wants 16- and 17-year-olds to vote. Not sure about Kev's reasons but here are mine.
First, they are intellectually engaged across more disciplines than any other age group. Yes, I know not all are in school but the vast majority are.
They have been in the habit of applying their minds to generalist learning for over 10 years and now they are at the peak.
Visit any public college or private senior high school and you will be blown away by the quality of the discourse. Once beyond school, the focus will narrow no matter what they do. (I am not talking about individuals, but rather age groups).
Second, they are more concerned for the future than other age groups.
They therefore take a broader view of self-interest when debating issues.
I submit they would vote for making the world a better place socially, economically and environmentally rather than giving their vote to whomever promises the biggest tax cuts and handouts.
Third, they can't possibly make any worse decisions than the rest of us have made over many elections.
We older voters keep buying into the cult of short-termism that allows our services and infrastructure to run down and merely chips away at the margins of our big challenges.
Lest you think I have a self-interest, I am a baby boomer at the older end of the spectrum. But I think it's in all our interest to increase the quality of the vote by extending it to 16- and 17-year-olds.
Joss Haiblen, Downer
ASIO's big impact
I lived in Canberra for 50 years, I still work and spend most of my leisure time here, and I'm sure that my reactions to the new ASIO building (''Growing unease over ASIO 'factory''', August 3, p1) and to the work already done are far from unusual.
First, I find it hard to comprehend why ASIO is such a large organisation, why it needs such a huge building, and why it needs such a huge (and very prominent) site. Are the ''threats'' to Australia's ''security'' really that numerous and/or that dire? I'd like to see a full justification for these ''needs''. Second, why do we have to endure yet another ugly architectural show-off toy near the lake shore?
And finally, if the new building is to be ''a building in a landscape'', why was every single tree on the site cut down? Another blight on the Canberra landscape.
Dr Douglas E. Mackenzie, Queanbeyan, NSW
Oppressive Islam
The case of the Sudanese woman, Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who faces a public lashing for wearing trousers instead of the mobile tent that other Muslim women are subjected to, gives us an insight into the oppressive paranoia that Muslims have about the viability of the false religion they call Islam (''Woman prepared for 40,000 lashes'', August 4, p6).
This woman was not being lewd or going around exposing her body, she was merely wearing the kind of attire that would go unnoticed in the majority of the world's societies, yet she was charged with wearing indecent (un-Islamic) clothes. This once again demonstrates the insane threats that Islamists would impose upon our way of life if ever given the chance.
And please let's not hear the usual chant that the Muslims here are not the same as those ruling the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Iran.
In every statement and every demand is the hidden threat that, given the opportunity, the Muslims who live here would be just as oppressive.
Because the oppression of others, especially non-believers, is a necessary part of their struggle to overcome the doubts they all hold about the truth of their (so-called) religion.
Shereen Zailanee, Coolbellup, WA
Email a friend