Reagan-Bush debt breaking nation's back
What a shortsighted comment about honesty! Bill Arwady (Forum, Nov. 5) would not hold George Bush responsible for present economic conditions. He prefers to lay the blame on the end of the Cold War. What a smoke screen! What a diversion of responsibility!
May I remind you, Mr. Arwady, that George Bush and his mentor, Ronald Reagan, are card-carrying members of that stalwart, radical right, bulwark center of conservatism known as the Republican Party. Mr. Bush is past head of the CIA at a time JTC when it was at its most notorious peak. Mr. Reagan was past head of the Screen Actors Guild and instrumental in the notorious "blacklist'' of the Joe McCarthy era (along with a most aggressive proponent of McCarthyism, Richard Nixon).
Ronald Reagan was responsible for one of the most flagrant rapes of the American taxpayer that has ever gone unpunished. First, Reagan told the public that he would substantially increase military spending, balance the federal budget and lower taxes, all at the same time. Then he proceeded to show us how to live the good life. The greatest swindle of the taxpayer was begun. SDI (the Strategic Defense Initiative) was proposed, and several hundred billions of dollars were funneled from the taxpayer's pockets to the pockets of Reagan's friends of the military-industrial complex. The spending was done in deficit fashion: not now pay later. The credit card mentality was used. The rich friends of Reagan-Bush have their money in the bank; the rest of us are still paying the tab. And the hundreds of billions of dollars did not go for education, not for crime reduction, nor for medical-wellness programs. It went only to make the rich richer and the poor that much more so. And the so-called war in the Persian Gulf was just one more cover-up, more smoke screen for all of the above!
Let's be honest, Mr. Arwady, and say it loud and clear: the present economic condition in this country is directly the result of the massive national debt (started by Reagan, continued by Bush) which is breaking the back of the American worker.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a a coerced, involuntary confession could be considered a "harmless error" not entitling a defendant to a new trial. The court also made it more difficult for prison inmates to appeal and approved jailing of persons for up to 48 hours before giving them an opportunity for a hearing before a judge.
In order for criminals to be deprived of rights, the same rights of the innocent have to be relinquished. Thus the innocent are once again victims of the criminals.
Not a day passes that I do not read or hear through the media the undue praises of Anita Hill's courage to discredit a man of talent with a 10-year-old accusation of sexual harassment.
I am confused: Where was that courage 10 years ago? Waiting to assassinate a man's character on his day of glory doesn't sound credible to me. In my mind, Ms. Hill was an affront to all men of character nationwide, stirring fear to even say, "Good morning."
What happened to a woman's demonstrating a preoccupation with work, and walking away from a situation, if indeed there is any credibility to a complaint? Anita Hill saw potential greatness from the onset and was let down a woman scorned.
Into the night, I faithfully watched what I thought were hearings to fill an open seat on the Supreme Court. Instead, more emphasis was placed on the attendance of every women's group, making one feel that Anita Hill was a pawn in a bid to create another Rosa Parks, or that this was just an evil ploy on the part of Ms. Hill.
As much as I abhor abuse and battering of women and children, there has to be a line drawn somewhere otherwise, the abuse of an honorable idea, women's rights, can be a setback to square one.
Down on Congress
Members of Congress say they feel victimized by the torrent of criticism aimed at them and the institution in which they serve. Rep. Bill Gradison, R-Ohio, said, "It's the worst I've seen in my 17 years here."
Doesn't Mr. Gradison realize that when he came to office in 1974, our country was in fairly good shape the budget not much in the red, crime was far from rampant, there were very few homeless and the banks and the economy were in good shape?
Yet Gradison wonders why the American people have so little regard for members of Congress. How could others in their position do worse?
Thomas and Hill
Gilbert Sandler, (Baltimore Glimpses, Nov. 11) speaks of the "harsh number" done on Anita Hill by conservative senators Orin Hatch, Alan Simpson and Arlen Specter. How about the "harsh number" done on Clarence Thomas by those on the liberal side of the aisle?
Do they believe in democracy and equal treatment under the law? Or is their chivalry and gallantly only extended in special situations as a politically expedient maneuver?
Blanche K. Coda