- The Washington Times - Friday, June 29, 2007

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Legislation is not the answer

Wednesday’s article “Senator targeting TV violence” (Nation) describes lawmakers going somewhere they do not belong. The belief that big media is more concerned with short-term profits than the long-term health of children is irrelevant in the argument about whether the government should further regulate television programs.

There is no place for the government to create further restrictions. The situation is best described by broadcast executives when they say that “parents are the first line of defense when it comes to protecting their children from violent content on television.” The decision on whether or not children should be able to watch this “increasingly violent” programming should remain with parents.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV stated, “I fear that graphic, violent programming has become so pervasive and has been shown to be so harmful, we are left with no choice but to have the government step in.” The fact is that the government does have a choice. The choice is to let parents and society exercise their rights to watch violence if they want. Creating restrictions is taking the decision away from individuals. Any more legislation regarding this subject will be detrimental to our basic right of free speech.

JAMES DOUGHERTY

Alexandria

Don’t punish Iran

The story on sanctions on Iran (“Iran uses fronts to avoid U.N. sanctions,” Page 1, June 13) underscores the need for diplomacy rather than further punishment. Nothing positive has resulted from sanctions. Rather, the U.S. should follow the direction of the Iraq Study Group, which outlined a long-term, smart policy to encourage talks that result in solutions instead of ineffective name-calling and irresponsible advocacy for military solutions.

Listening to outlawed dissident groups outside of Iran will get us into the same trouble as believing Iraqi dissident groups before that invasion.

DR. CATHERINE

THOMASSON

President

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Portland, Ore.

Illegals and Social Security

In his letter “Fiscal timebombs” (Wednesday), John McVickar asks: “How will the spendthrift Congress make up for the loss of the hidden Social Security income, much less save Social Security?” Unfortunately, I believe this is one of the intentions behind the proposed immigration bill. In dumping this poorly drafted bill on the American people, the politicians figure the immediate infusion of taxes paid in by 12 million to 20 million new taxpayers will put off the emergency of a failing Social Security to a much later date. At that time, the current crop of politicians will no longer be in office to be held responsible.

AMELIA PIERSON

Timonium, Md.

The facts about global warming

I wanted to compliment the generally correct interpretation of the crucially important solar-climate connection you describe in “A coming cold day for a warm globe” (Pruden on Politics, June 22). I have worked with professor Timothy Patterson of Carleton University in Ottawa for the past eight years to explain to the public what he and other researchers are finding, namely that changes in the output of the sun, not human emissions of carbon dioxide, are driving global climate change. Few news outletshave come as close as you have to describing this phenomenon correctly.

However, one point in your piece requires correction. In describing the role of the solar wind, you write: “The amplifier is a protective solar wind, entering Earth’s atmosphere from deep space, enhancing cloud formation, which has a cooling effect on the globe.” Actually, it is galactic cosmic rays from supernovas in deep space that enter the Earth’s atmosphere and enhance cloud formation (clouds being the amplifier). When the sun’s radiative output is higher, the solar wind is also stronger, and it works to block the cosmic rays from entering our solar system (and hence our atmosphere) leading to less cloud formation and so an even warmer planet than what one would get from direct solar input alone (because clouds generally cool the planet).

TOM HARRIS

Executive director

Natural Resources Stewardship Project

Ottawa

The Red Chinese threat

Hats off to Frank Gaffney for his excellent and incisive analysis of how Communist China operates to exploit the current administration’s ruinous trade policies (“China’s double standard,” Commentary, Tuesday).

Now we learn that in addition to supplying weapons and ammunition to Taliban fighters and Iraqi insurgents with which to kill American soldiers (“China arming terrorists,” Inside the Ring, June 15), China is garnering a share of post-liberation Iraq’s oil. In mid-2003, our firm prepared a briefing circular that warned of the dangerous consequences to U.S. national security of leaving Iraq’s Saddam Hussein-era sovereign debt owed to the Communist Chinese government outstanding. A copy of our brief was provided to both Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice, who then was the president’s national security adviser, and in it we predicted the eventuality of China’s gaining access to Iraq’s national petroleum reserves through a negotiated debt-cancellation scheme. The administration took no action, with the result that Communist China enjoys enhanced energy security at the cost of the lives of many hundreds of U.S. servicemen and women who fought to liberate Iraq.

Even the most casual observer has to wonder whether it is the permissive stance of this administration toward China’s refusal to honor repayment of its defaulted sovereign obligations held by Americans that directly encourages the Chinese government to write its own rules of international conduct. According to the president of the U.S. Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, in more than 40 settlements involving defaulted national debt, the Communist Chinese government is the only nation that steadfastly has refused to negotiate the settlement of its defaulted sovereign debt held by Americans.

We consider the present situation to be nothing short of outrageous. The president, proudly bestowing upon himself the title of “war president,” supports trade policies with China that actively undermine the national security interests of the United States and our armed forces. The existing policies only serve the interests of the Chinese government, certain multinational corporations and a select few Wall Street institutions. In this regard, we should not fail to note that under the administration’s prevailing trade policies, America’s chief export to China consists of U.S. jobs, which are disappearing at an estimated rate of 2,250 per day.

It also is revealing to note the shift in policy recently announced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., who stated that the emphasis is shifting away from China’s currency manipulation, which constitutes the most proximate cause for the dislocation of U.S. jobs and entire industries, and toward the lessening of restrictions on outbound investment from mainland China. This policy shift may be expected to further the erosion of the U.S. employment base while assisting certain Chinese actors in recycling profits earned from the U.S.-China trade imbalance into U.S. assets. The recent acquisition of 9.9 percent of the U.S. buyout fund Blackstone is just the precursor of the change in ownership of U.S. assets for which the stage is being set hastily.

We join with Mr. Gaffney in urging readers to actively express their support to Congress in favor of H. Con. Res. 160 and similar legislation in an attempt to reform the prevailing policy of coddling Communist China while selling out America.

KEVIN O’BRIEN

President

Sovereign Advisers

Tucson, Ariz.

Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide