Letters to the Editor

The world’s responsibility

We agree with James T. Morris regarding the increasingly precarious situation of African children orphaned by AIDS that “the world has a responsibility to help” (“Galvanized by hope,” U.N. Report, World, yesterday, and “HIV/AIDS and hunger,” Op-Ed, yesterday).

Current efforts, however, are failing to address the vast and complex nature of the crisis even though we know — according to UNICEF, UNAIDS and the World Bank — how to prevent it and how much that will cost. A case in point: Recent analysis suggested that an effective pediatric HIV vaccine in combination with chemoprophylaxis for the mother given to 8.7 million African infants yearly could prevent 1.8 million infections. Such an intervention would gain 16.5 million disability-adjusted life years (DALY) with an economic benefit (at $3.4/DALY) of $56.1 million for a total cost of $44.5 million (Bishai, Lin and Kiyonga, 2001; Bos and Postma, 2001).

Our challenge is to implement strategies concurrently that include food aid, but also keep parents alive by expanding access to drugs, protect newborns from infection and guard children from neglect and maltreatment while keeping them well and in school. Just as challenging is the unprecedented alliance necessary to provide the economic resources and human capital to help Africa develop and maintain a long-term, comprehensive commitment to the pandemic and the orphans and other children put in danger by it. This must happen without further delay. In terms of economic benefit and the lives saved, the impact in Africa will be substantial. In terms of our humanity, the benefit will be inestimable.

GEORGE M. WORTHINGTON

Adviser

BARBARA A. RADNOFSKY

Secretary

Friends of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention

Houston

Sharing the blame

Kudos to The Washington Times and writer Jennifer Harper for the story “Fill in the blank and blame Bush” (Nation, Saturday).

The article should be required reading for those hard liberals who don’t yet realize that when all they have to offer is a steady stream of whining, pessimism and negative criticism for criticism’s sake, rational people are turned off by the droves. Don’t count on many of them reading your newspaper, however, or otherwise getting the message.

DOUGLAS MATTHEWS

Arlington, Va.

Israel’s fencing

Clifford D. May’s Sunday Commentary column, “Fence with a function,” is quite misleading. First, he euphemistically calls Israel’s huge wall designed to perpetrate its policies of apartheid and occupation of Palestine a “fence.” Second, this wall not only runs through Palestinian territories, but also encloses Palestinian townships and villages. Third, the wall extends Israel’s illegal exclusive Jewish colonies.

Instead of defending Israel’s violent and aggressive policies, Mr. May should call for ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the occupation army’s terrorism and human rights violations, which are the main drivers of unnecessary violence and conflict in Israel and Palestine.

TANWEER AKRAM

Arlington

Clifford D. May’s column on Israel’s fence is truly concerning and does not take into account the reality of the situation. The author does not consider that Israel is an occupier and has illegally taken over Palestinian land. Since the beginning of the Zionist movement, it has constantly dehumanized and violated the Palestinians and their rights.

If Israel were truly concerned about its security, it should stop the daily brutalization by the militant IDF that kills innocent Palestinian children and the illegal confiscation of property and homes belonging to the Palestinians. It should withdraw to the 1967 green line.

Doesn’t the current situation echo the tales of the Warsaw ghetto? Why should the Palestinians be collectively punished for the Holocaust? The Palestinians have a right to “resist” the Israeli occupation and fight for their nation and sovereignty. Unfortunately, Israel’s brutal policies against the Palestinians have given birth to a radical form of resistance.

RIMA MUTREJA

Washington

’Where have you been driving lately?’

My first reaction after reading your editorial “The District’s phone ban” (Editorial, Saturday) was: Where have you been driving lately?

As a sales consultant, I traverse D.C. roads on a daily basis. I used a hands-free phone for years and recently switched to an earpiece. (Those are the only two ways to use a cell phone safely while driving.) So, I really don’t understand why the new law would “harass commuters.”

The facts are clear: The average driver doesn’t bother to use turn signals, often makes erratic lane changes, ignores traffic signals and, worst of all, cuts off pedestrians. The use of cell phones while driving has made all of this worse.

You don’t need “a wealth of statistical evidence” to prove that using a cell phone while driving isn’t safe. Common sense dictates that it is not safe if you do not use the special devices that enable you to keep both hands on the steering wheel.

I don’t understand why you felt it necessary to quote AAA. It is notorious for not coming out on the side of traffic safety when needed. Officials at AAA would rather worry about their bottom line so as not to offend too many drivers.

By the way, have you ever noticed how AAA’s affable spokespersons put a spin on the facts every time there is a major traffic-safety issue? I often think that they were trained in the Clinton White House.

I do not buy your excuse that because the District has such a high crime rate, police officers do not have the time to enforce the law. In those traffic accidents where the police will be called in, I can guarantee you that the officers will be looking for cell phones and/or witnesses of cell phone use by guilty parties.

So let us have a cell-phone ban while driving in the hope that the quality of driving will improve in Washington. That will be in everyone’s interest.

A. MARTIN SINGELENBERG

Chevy Chase, Md.

A nation of immigrants

In “Sweeping immigration policy” (Op-Ed, Friday), Diana West expresses her discomfort with President Bush’s recent immigration overhaul. In describing illegal immigrants as felons, she runs the risk of appearing to equate those immigrants with murderers, rapists and other types of felons who pose a much greater risk to our society. By pointing out that one of the individuals involved in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was an illegal immigrant who had been granted amnesty, she overlooks the fact that many illegal immigrants are here for perfectly innocent reasons, with many of them fleeing war or persecution in their homelands.

Perhaps Mrs. West has forgotten the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty, which reads, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …” Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

MARY T. SHAW

Norristown, Pa.

Playing with words

In response to the article “Bill would punish vulgar broadcasts” (Page 1, Saturday):

Speaking of a proposed broadcast prohibition on certain words deemed offensive, Robert J. Thompson of Syracuse University states that if “TV or radio has to be OK for the age of 6, then nothing can be more sophisticated than that.” So now we know, according to an expert, what it takes for “sophisticated” programming: liberal use of the f-word. I would characterize sophistication as being able to communicate without having to resort to language most people find vulgar.

The article calls Mr. Thompson a professor of TV and popular culture. Don’t we already have a couple hundred million of those in the United States? Do we actually need professors for that kind of thing?

JOHN G. DUMLER

Mechanicsville, Md.