Letters to the Editor

OPINION:

America’s security interests served

“Pyongyang moonshine” (Editorial, Monday) argues, “It’s past time… to take a very careful look at the ramifications of the North Korea nuclear deal and what the United States will be getting in return for taking North Korea off the terrorism list.”

Ironically, The Washington Times got it right: It is past time to examine what’s at stake and for critics to appreciate what has been accomplished so far. North Korea has stopped plutonium production and is well on its way to completing disablement of the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon. That is a major accomplishment for the United States, which is concerned not only about North Korea building more bombs, but also by the possibility that its nuclear technology will find its way into the hands of terrorist groups.

To be sure, none of these steps could have been accomplished without compromise and providing Pyongyang with incentives. Nevertheless, the United States has withheld removal from the terrorism list until a satisfactory declaration of North Korea’s nuclear programs has been made. The Bush administration’s judgment is that a declaration that is thorough in disclosing information on its plutonium-production program and in allowing intrusive verification of that information may fall short of some expectations. Nevertheless, it still meets the vital test of serving America’s national security interests. Furthermore, removal from the terrorism list — Pyongyang’s main demand — while politically important, is substantively meaningless. It will have little impact on North Korea’s ability to enter the global economy because many layers of sanctions would remain.

JOEL S. WIT

Former State Department official (1986-2002)

Press hysteria

Although I don’t think we were punished by God on Sept. 11, I can’t help but wonder why the press is so much more alarmed by a minister whose history of oppression makes him think America is a sinful nation that will be punished than it is by priests who have sex with children (“Rhetorical rampage,” Commentary, May 1).

I never saw such press hysteria before. The press has not pressured any politicians to leave the Catholic Church. It has not pressured any politicians to leave priests who have been silent on the issue of pedophilia. It has not pressured any politicians to leave priests who have not put in place structures to protect children from perverse religious authorities.

Can the unknown, the viewpoints of a minister whose religion is mysterious to most of white America, be more scary than pedophilia? Wow…. Freud thought hysteria was related to unacceptable sexual wishes. Press hysteria suggests it also is related to the fear of the unknown and irrational annihilation fantasies.

PAMELA S. JENNINGS

Washington

For the good of society

The Washington Times previously has honored the values of freedom, faith and family. However, I am disturbed by your Saturday travel article by Joel Berliner, “Life at the top in Las Vegas,” about Hugh Hefner and the Playboy Club resort in Las Vegas. Mr. Hefner is described as a “stalwart champion of civil rights, the First Amendment and, yes, women’s rights.”

Mr. Hefner is one of the people most responsible for the disconnect between sex and responsibility, love and family. He is one of the top peddlers of pornography in the world, in which women are objectified as sexual objects to be used and discarded. There are no “rights” or “freedoms” without responsibility, boundaries and values. I hope you will publish articles in the future which live up to the highest standards of good for society as a whole.

RICHARD URBAN

Co-founder

ULTRA Teen Choice

Washington

Ethanol mandate is a mistake

Clifford May trivializes the impact on world hunger of the recent surge in grain prices (“Food and fuel cost fix,” Commentary, Saturday). I don’t usually quote eco-radical George Monbiot, but on this topic, nobody has said it better: “Even when the price of food was low, 850 million people went hungry because they could not afford to buy it. With every increment in the price of flour or grain, several million more are pushed below the breadline.”

Mr. May argues that the ethanol mandate can’t be a culprit in grain price inflation because “the total U.S. corn crop has increased 45 percent since 2002” while the amount of corn “available for food and feed has increased 34 percent.” These numbers are misleading because the mandate was not enacted until July 2005. The relevant issue is the mandate’s effecton food stocks over the past three years.

According tothe Department of Agriculture, total U.S. corn production in 2004-05 (the crop year before the mandate was enacted) was 11.8 billion bushels, and it will hit an estimated 13 billion bushels in 2007-08 — an increase of 1.2 billion bushels. In contrast, corn production for ethanol in 2004-05 was 1.3 billion bushels, and it will reach an estimated 3.2 billion bushels in 2007-08 — an increase of 1.9 billion bushels.

Ethanol manufacture is consuming more than the increase in total U.S. corn production at a time when global demand for food and feed is growing rapidly.How could that not substantially increase corn prices?

Mr. May claims the ethanol mandate enhances national security. However, even if the entire U.S. corn crop were converted to ethanol, it would displace just 12 percent of the nation’s annual gasoline consumption.

Nobody has ever explained how that would discernably reduce the risk of war in the Middle East or terrorist attacks by al Qaeda. One thing is clear: The mandate is diverting millions of tons of grain from food to auto fuel in a world where hunger remains the chief threat facing the largest number of people.

MARLO LEWIS

Senior fellow

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Washington

We all benefit from oil profits

In commenting on Donald Lambro’s Monday Commentary column, “Energy? Here’s the Drill” (Monday), Jay Stout of Timonium, Md., offers opinions and solutions based on fantasy rather than facts (“Oil companies stack the deck,” Letters, Tuesday). First, oil refineries are being prevented from being built because of local and national efforts by so-called environmentalists and the “not in my back yard” attitude of many communities. Contrary to Mr. Stout’s opinion, oil companies know new refineries are needed and want to build them.

Second, oil companies do not manipulate the prices of gasoline or other petroleum products. Petroleum is a commodity on the world market, and every oil company in every country pays about the same price for it — except members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which provide products to their own populations at cut rates. For example, throughout Europe and even in the United Kingdom, which produces some of its own gasoline from its North Sea wells, the price of gasoline is nearing $10 a gallon. The world price is pushed up by demand. Also, the burgeoning new economies of the world’s two most populous countries, China and India, have sparked that demand, as people there are buying and driving automobiles.

Third, U.S. oil companies are not motivated by greed. Rather, every one is publicly held, and a large majority of Americans hold stock in those companies through 401(k) and IRA shares or retirement plans. In short, the majority of us benefit directly from oil-company profits.

Finally, Mr. Stout’s “solution” that the federal government should build the refineries is a first step along a path remarkably similar to that followed by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who nationalized the petroleum industry there. Moreover, the Economy in Government Act prohibits the federal government from undertaking business enterprises that can be accomplished in or are in competition with the private sector. That law has been on the books for a long time and continues to serve us well. America doesn’t need its refineries or gas stations run by same folks who run the Department of Motor Vehicles.

COL. FRANKLYN J. SELZER

Air Force (retired)

Fairfax