- The Washington Times - Friday, May 11, 2001

'World federation cant stop missile proliferation

The letter "Missile defense untenable, global laws needed" states that a "democratic world federation with the proper institutions for enactment, enforcement and adjudication" is the proper alternative to a missile defense shield. The article then cites establishment of our own U.S. Constitution as a model for creation of "democratic world law" to create a civilized world where conflict is resolved through the force of law. This admirable concept assumes that a constitution and a rule of law will prevent conflict. The U.S. Constitution and the rule of law could not prevent the American Civil War when the opposing sides could no longer find acceptable compromises.
This letter also assumes that the conditions exist that would allow the drafting and ratification of a world constitution. The U.S. Constitution was possible only because the residents of each state shared a common vision of government and society. This shared vision had developed during several generations of Colonial self-government before the Revolutionary War. A common vision of government and society does not exist in todays world, nor will it exist in the foreseeable future.
The basic fundamentals of our constitutional democratic republic the rule of law, government by the consent of the governed, an independent judiciary, inalienable individual rights, a free press, the right to own private property and equal justice under the law are not shared by many societies or countries, even some that are labeled "democratic."
Finally, the countries that pose a missile threat and are the reason for the missile shield in the first place do not enforce the "rule of law" within their own countries, so how can we accept the idea that they will honor the rule of law outside their borders?

Dumfries, Va.

Spanish politician assassinated by terrorists, not 'separatist group'

After reading "Politician shot, killed before key elections" in your May 7 World Scene section, I note with great disappointment that after all of Spanish societys expressions of repulsion at the criminal actions of the terrorist group ETA, The Washington Times has followed international press dispatchers in referring to the ETA as a "Basque separatist group."
The simple truth is that ETA activists cannot be described as anything but "terrorists" and "assassins" the terms used by the State Department, which includes the ETA on its annual list of global terrorist organizations. To call the ETA a "separatist" or "guerrilla" group is simply inaccurate.
I would like to mention just a few facts about the political situation of the Basque Country that will help your readers understand why the ETA is not a "guerrilla" or "separatist" group. The Basque Country is one of Spains 17 autonomous regions, and it suffers no discrimination: It has its own Parliament, tax code, and education and legal systems. It is public knowledge that the Basque Country enjoys more autonomy than any other region in Europe.
It is very important for your readers to be well informed about the situation this terrorist group is creating in our country, and I would therefore like to thank The Washington Times for its coverage of the issue.

Embassy of Spain

Day care is seldom a 'necessity'

Betsy Harts May 8 Commentary column, "Day care guilt trips," couldnt be more correct.
I have experience with both sides of this issue, having been a child care provider outside the home. Institutionalized care is, in fact, a warehouse for children. Despite the flowery name it is given be it preschool, alternative care or whatever new synonym feminists pull from their thesauruses it remains a poor substitute for parental care.
Admittedly, some child care staffers truly devote themselves to children. (Yes, such staffers do exist.) But even these dedicated child care providers are not mommy or daddy, and your children know the difference.
As home-schooling parents living in Alexandria, my husband and I are more than aware of how expensive basic necessities can be. I no longer hold two jobs or work outside the home. We struggle daily.
For us, home-schooling was a matter of defining the difference between necessity and want, what is important and what is simply materialism. This epiphany occurred when my husband and I realized that we had no recollection of our oldest daughters third year. We observed it through pictures and home movies, the way many parents today manufacture happy familial memories.
We gave up the second car and moved our plans for a large home forward a few years. We tightened our budgets, and I am home full time finally to take responsibility for our dearest possessions the only ones who have no choice in the decisions that affect them daily.
I personally know of many women, some residents of my neighborhood, who say they would trade places with me in a heartbeat. Whether professors, lawyers, political hopefuls or waitresses, they all have one thing in common: They create a sense of impossibility where none exists. Their way of dealing with their guilt at being away from their children is to see it as the result of a necessary lifestyle. In other words, they weigh economic considerations, their personal desires and their childrens lives, and by some distorted logic, decide that child care is an acceptable trade-off for their other considerations. Strangely, their "guilt trips" often become something to be proud of, a topic of conversation around the office water cooler or something to tell the psychiatrist.


Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide