- The Washington Times - Monday, August 26, 2002

Column is 'sexual McCarthyism at its worst'

I was shocked to read the skewed and potentially libelous column "Strange bedfellows" by Judith Reisman and Dennis Jarrard (Op-Ed, Wednesday).
Dr. Paul McHugh is one of this nation's most highly respected psychiatrists. He has been honored for his untiring efforts to restore some semblance of sanity and rationality to the practice of psychiatry and has courageously debunked what I describe as "fraudulent theory." Among other recognitions of his stature, President Bush appointed him to the commission that recently recommended national policy on research involving cloning.
Yet you have allowed two self-promoters to smear him in a duplicitous guilt-by-association diatribe. Dr. McHugh is not Dr. Fred Berlin or Dr. John Money. Why, then, did the bulk of the column address their purported deficiencies?
Why did Mrs. Reisman not acknowledge Dr. McHugh's unqualified opposition to sex-change surgery and to "junk science" concepts such as multiple personality disorder, recovered-memory therapy, satanic ritual abuse of children, past-life therapy and the like? Why does Mr. Jarrard omit any mention of his role in the discredited "satanic panic" fomented by the Los Angeles Commission on Women during his tenure as an adviser to the Los Angeles County Commission on Obscenity and Pornography? The latter group stood mute as many innocent children and their families were accused of participating in heinous, obscene and pornographic (but fantasized) atrocities.
This column is sexual McCarthyism at its worst. Dr. McHugh deserves an apology, and your readers deserve a more objective assessment of this distinguished gentleman's manifold contributions to sound psychiatric treatment and his efforts to restore a modicum of credibility to American psychiatry.

HOWARD FISHMAN
Philadelphia

Is the federal work roll skewed against minorities?

Courts will again spend considerable time and expense hearing a case brought on behalf of those who have enjoyed America's bounty for four centuries ("In a bureaucratic bind," Op-Ed, Thursday). The federal government is being sued for promoting affirmative action.
I am not going to address columnist Roger Clegg's ruminations about the role of the Justice Department in defending affirmative employment programs, but a glance at federal work-force statistics raises a fundamental question as to why such a lawsuit would be brought.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2000, two-thirds of all employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES) were white men, though white men made up just 40 percent of the total work force. Minorities held 30 percent of all federal jobs but made up just 13.5 percent of the SES. The ethnic breakdown was no better: Blacks made up 17 percent of the federal work force but only 7.1 percent of the SES; Hispanics made up 6.6 percent of the work force but only 3.3 percent of the SES; Asians accounted for 4.5 percent of total employees but only 2.3 percent of the SES. Twenty-eight percent of all employees were white women, but white women made up 19.5 percent of the SES.
In view of these numbers, it's difficult to understand how white men have suffered systemic discrimination as a result of the government's affirmative employment program. If the plaintiff in this case has personally suffered discrimination, it is indeed unfortunate. However, he should seek individual redress under the Civil Rights Act, not threaten opportunities for those who historically have been excluded from the upper levels of the federal government.

SHIRLEY J. WILCHER
Executive director
Americans for a Fair Chance
Washington

Rep. Barr's questionable appellation

The type of "void" Rep. Bob Barr's defeat will leave in the Republican Party will be welcome, from my libertarian viewpoint ("Barr's defeat said to leave void in GOP," Nation, Thursday).
Those who refer to him as a "civil libertarian" (as quoted in the article) could by the same reasoning refer to Adolf Hitler as a humanitarian. Mr. Barr single-handedly voided the votes of D.C. residents who overwhelmingly passed a medical marijuana initiative. Mr. Barr has been a tyrant's tyrant toward reefer reason, choosing to embrace blindly the worn-out reefer-madness propaganda of a bygone era. Now that he has been given the boot by his constituents, it's likely he'll get an appointment from his fellow "civil libertarian" Attorney General John Ashcroft, who also was booted from office by his constituents.
Thousands of real libertarians across the country contributed to the campaign to oust from Congress this man who would deny the sick and dying a nontoxic means of improving the quality of their lives.
Mr. Barr will fit right in with the drug-warrior bureaucracy, which is run by people who profit at the expense of those who dare exercise civil liberty.

RICK L. ROOT
Director for Orange County, Calif.,
Americans for Safe Access
Westminster, Calif.

Only a 'vocal minority' opposes U.S. in S. Korea

I felt compelled to write after reading Friday's Page One article "Anti-U.S. feelings rise in South Korea" and Peter Kauffner's informative letter in response to it ("South Korean anti-Americanism is always short-lived," yesterday).
I have just returned from a one-year tour in South Korea, where I served as a public-affairs officer for the U.S. government. In that capacity I spent a great deal of time reading what the Korea press wrote about the U.S. military and witnessing firsthand some of the protests cited in Friday's article. My experience leads me to the following conclusions:
First, the concept of a "free press" in Korea is a relatively new one: It has existed for only about 10 years. Journalistic principles such as balance, objectivity and fairness are not fully inculcated within the Korean press corps. The result is that you see a great deal of coverage of the vocal minority. It sells papers when you can get shots of Koreans demonstrating in front U.S. military installations, especially if they become violent as some did in July.
Second, many of the protests are organized by professional protesters. These people are hired by nongovernmental organizations that have a "U.S. out of Korea" agenda. What's more, the vast majority of the protestors are college students who, during their vacations, regularly protest in front of U.S. military installations. This is not new at all.
Third, and related to the above, some nongovernmental organizations in Korea are using the death of the two Korean teenagers to rally support for their agenda. Their concerns are not for the families of the two young girls. Rather, they are using this unfortunate accident to galvanize support for getting the United States out of Korea and for revising the Status of Forces Agreement.
Fourth, South Koreans are riding high after their enormously successful World Cup performance. There is in South Korea a level of hubris not seen before. One need only to think back to the pride felt by Americans after the "miracle on ice" when the U.S. hockey team defeated the Soviet Union in 1980. South Korea's economic and World Cup successes have left some in Korea believing they can go it alone. This is not, however, a view held by the Koreans with whom I worked and socialized.
Finally, the South Korean-U.S. alliance is strong. Most sensible Koreans understand that the United States is vital to the stability within that region of the world in general, and this stability sets the conditions for democracy and robust economic growth in South Korea specifically
We must, at every opportunity, emphasize to the Korean people the benefits of the U.S. presence in South Korea. That said, we must also acknowledge that some in Korea will loudly and visibly protest our presence there, but this should not cause us to waiver in our support of this important strategic ally.

ROBERT H. TALLMAN JR.
Fort Meade, Md.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide