Daniel Lak tells us that the 'America's Christian fundamentalist right' are the equivalent of 'the Islamist movement up to and perhaps just shy of al Qaeda'. It is these 'fundos', as Lak loves to call them, who have apparently put Mr Bush back in power. How did they do that? Are we to picture Bible-toting teenagers with explosives strapped around their waist crashing into ballot stations? Or perhaps flak-jacketed housewives from Alabama, armed to the teeth, storming the Capitol? Lak is at pains to emphasise that the 'hard, churchgoing, literal Bible believers in America' are not as numerous as they seem. What we really should be scared of, he tells us, is an assertive China. 'Deep corruption. Huge population. Environmental degradation.' Lak isn't nearly as scared as he should be. Sixty million of those awful people are, wait for it, Bible believing Christians. Ahh, more fundos! So much for the advance of 'Englightenment' (sic) thinking.

Mark Pickett,
Pulchok
I recognise Daniel Lak's strengths as a reporter but I don't understand why he is still given a slot on the editorial section of the Nepali Times. He had interesting things to say while he was still in Nepal and his western background gave him some perspective but now that he is in Florida, he seems less concerned about what is happening in an obscure Asian country he once reported from. Now that the Internet is widely available in Nepal, the rantings of western columnists can be read from any roadside cyber cafe, and cable TV has given Nepalis all the CNN, BBC and Fox that they could want, why do we need a foreign journalist giving us foreign news stories from 8,000 miles away? I suggest reducing the frequency of his occasionally quite insightful column and replacing him with a regular local who is more familiar with the nuts and bolts of Nepali life and politics. This arrangement might benefit everyone, perhaps even Lak himself.
Manish Gyawali,
email