Let elders now aid younger generations
We, the people who have outlived our three score and 10 biblical allowance, are credited with successfully protecting our rights by voting in large numbers and lobbying more than most social groups. We have also survived the wars and pestilence of a tragic century: the 1919 flu epidemic and the polio menace, two world wars, the Great Depression and more.
We have survived, and before we bow out it is befitting that we make a final contribution toward protecting the younger generations who have to cope with the world we, after all, are responsible for, and which we have perhaps left in even worse shape than we found it. After the failure of the League of Nations, the United Nations was created. It is time that we, the senior citizens, make our vote or veto felt there, putting into action the experience and compassion we have learned.
The elders in every other time in history were supposed to be the wise ones. We know that often they were the foolish ones; we have enough Poloniuses in high places already. But there are elders among us, survivors and witnesses of the Holocaust, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Cambodia, Vietnam and Afghanistan. From that experience, they can get together and remind the world to reflect on the suffering of so many innocents.
We elders look at the handsome, healthy young men and women, at the babies, at the teen-agers threatened now with a new war. We have so many new armaments, and it seems that all nations, not only Saddam Hussein, are itching to try them. We elders must get together and speak up, even if it means putting aside our own problems for now. Let's use the little life we have left to save our young ones, the innocent ones who do not know what it is they are facing. Let's speak up now.
President Bush, Secretary of State Baker and other administration officials begged the United Nations to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Now Bush and Baker are saying the UN resolution must be implemented at any cost.
Yet the Security Council has tried many times to pass many resolutions that condemned Israel for its actions in the Middle East, only to have the United States use its veto power to shield Israel. How do the United States and the Bush administration justify such hypocrisy?
In his "fruitcake" column of Dec. 3, Kevin Cowherd wonders what is in fruitcake. Anyone who has read his stuff for awhile knows - old Cowherd columns, ground up, recycled and decorated with glazed cherries.
Louis W. Steinwedel
Your Dec. 11 editorial, "The rock ...," takes exception to Johns Hopkins Hospital's failure to implement a proposed policy of mandatory, random drug testing for doctors: "Reassuring uneasy patients" justifies such a policy, in your view. Since Hopkins raised no contention of drug abuse among the medical staff, individuals would have been subject to random forensic searches for the sake of a public relations placebo. Your view is impervious to the presumption of innocence.
Your public safety analogy, placing doctors in the same category as pilots and train engineers, is plausible insofar as it goes. However, under this rationale, automobile drivers ought to be subject to random drug testing since more drug-related carnage is caused by this group than by any of the aforementioned.
If "reassuring" an uneasy public ` not crime detection ` is the imperative, then there is no limit to the list of logical candidates for random drug testing. President Bush and Governor Schaefer come immediately to mind.
The enemy: Bush
It has been proven that George Bush lied to the American public in the Iran-contra affair. Since he has lied at least once, he would do it again. George Bush cannot be trusted. This type of hypocritical deceit makes Bush worse than Saddam Hussein.
Hussein isn't the enemy of the American public; George Bush is.