A double standard in foreign policy
Recently President Bush lectured Fidel Castro on what his obligations and responsibilities are if our diplomatic relations are to be resumed with Cuba.
No such lecture, however, has ever been given to the emir of Kuwait or to Yitzhak Shamir in their repression and torture of Palestinians. Nor has any such lecture been given to the death squad regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, or to Turkey in its rape and plunder of Cypress, or to Indonesia in its genocide in East Timor.
Fidel Castro owes us nothing. The others mentioned owe the very existence of their regimes to billions of our tax dollars - and in the case of the emir, to the blood of our youth.
George Bush's blatant double standard is too grotesque to quantify.
Gerald Ben Shargel
Nineteen ninety-one seems to be the year for "confessions" on the TV talk shows:
These shows goes on and on, each new one more bizarre than the last. I wonder if the psychiatrists of the people who go on such shows tell them to "face their souls" to millions of people. Not too many years ago people with abnormal problems wouldn't even tell their relatives such things, let alone strangers. How times have changed!
Royko hates women
Mike Royko's contribution to the definition of "leering" (Evening Sun, May 6) clearly reflects his deep-seated anger, resentment and contempt for women. The article, which completely lacks meaning, as well as critical understanding and analysis of the political implications of sexual harassment, thrives on insults, devaluation of women and fantasies.
In fact, the article is a summation of epithets that prostitute women and portray them as artificial (painted), lewd, immoral and seductive creatures (walk-wigglers, lip-lickers, eye-flutterers) deserving of being harassed.
Articles like Royko's are twisted, offensive and revolting. They reflect the crudeness, sexism, unsophistication and brainlessness of both their author and of the newspaper which sees fit to present them to the public.
OK, all you who would extend the school year, now's your chance!
On one of these hot, humid days park yourself at one of your local non-air-conditioned schools and sit in a classroom from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. with a 30-minute lunch break in the cafeteria. Then go back to your air-conditioned office and write about how the school year should be extended another 20 days.
Palm Beach drama
Disclosure of low deeds by people in high places always sets off the initial violent denials, assurances of support of a complete investigation, resentment at being unjustly named, followed by citing all the good "I have done."
We are accustomed to looking for Act II, in which true investigation discloses criminal involvement, proves the falsity of the initial denials and moves toward prosecution or resignation from office.
Let's see how the rest of Act III of this drama, "Low Deeds By High People," turns out.
Richard J. Huffman
The voice of socialism is rearing its ugly head again in "War against children" (Forum, May 7).
The author of such hatred of our American system of government stoops to a new low in using children to make his point. All these shortcomings the letter writer attempts to lay on our government's doorstep are for the most part the fault of American people who are too irresponsible to care for their young properly.
No one ever said our government was perfect, but it was never intended as a "stand-in" for every irresponsible parent in the nation. To expect it to be a panacea for all social ills is to opt for a socialistic form of government.
This is what is tearing our country apart. More and more subsidization (socialism) means more and more government spending, which means more and more irresponsible people all too willing to "let George do it," or in this case, Uncle Sam.
Blanche K. Coda
A right to bear arms cut this lineout
The Evening Sun continues its obdurate campaign to portra the Second Amendment as some sort of "fraud" or "nonsense." The enlistment of former Chief Justice Burger, however, who was known during his tenure primarily for his dedication to administrative matters, lends little weight to the argument.
It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that an enacted provision is to be construed so as to preserve its intended meaning. This principle applies with even greater force in the construction of the Bill of Rights, and particularly to a right viewed by the original framers as second in importance only to free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.
Amendments to the Constitution take effect upon enactment. They do not require a redeclaration of their terms by the Supreme Court in order to become the law of the land.