- The Washington Times - Saturday, May 4, 2002

Pedophile science

Even as the nation's largest religious denomination is rocked by the scandal of pedophile priests, Judith Levine, in her book "Harmful to Minors," is making excuses for pedophilia. This is hardly a coincidence. Academic Judith Reisman, author of "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences," says pro-pedophile "sexperts" such as those lionized in Miss Levine's book have counseled the Roman Catholic Church and other denominations for at least two decades about the harmlessness of pedophilia.
As the current media darling of the "anything goes" sexual revolution (how many authors get a pro-pedophile-favorable photo story in the New York Times?), Miss Levine gets ink and ample space to disparage anyone who differs with her such as Mrs. Reisman, who finds children worthy of protection rather than sexual exploitation.
Miss Levine's letter to the editor in The Washington Timesis as misguided and inaccurate as her collection of statistics on sex, incest, childhood, homosexuality, sex-offender recidivism, pedophile abuse, etc. drawn from notorious pedophile advocates ("'Children are sexual,' says author," April 25).
Mrs. Reisman finds at least 12 pedophile advocates among the "credible" scholars Miss Levine quotes in her book, four of whom are editors of the Journal of Paedophilia: Vern Bullough, Edward Brongersma, Theo Sandfort and Lawrence Stanley, whom Miss Levine cites as an expert who confirms that child pornography is a "myth." According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Mr. Stanley also is affiliated with Uncommon Desires, which describes itself as a magazine "about girl-love, erotic desires, censorship and the police state."
In her letter, Miss Levine trots out the oft-repeated and well-worn charges of the sex industry and radical left-wing academics against Mrs. Reisman. Coincidentally, the charges Miss Levine makes also were made in 1994 by "gay rights" attorneys defending Joe Steffan in Steffan vs. Perry. Their accusations were rejected based on evidence presented to the highest appeals court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit,.
As long as Mrs. Reisman is alive, Miss Levine and her pro-pedophilia comrades cannot ignore Alfred Kinsey, the founder of what Miss Levine calls "real sex research." Kinsey biographer James H. Jones labeled him a "covert crusader" in the New Yorker in 1997.
Kinsey, who had a massive pornography collection, declared children sexual from birth based on experiments documented in his 1948 study "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male," page 180, Table 34. In this "study," at least 317 infants and children, some as young as 2 months old, were "orally and manually" sodomized around the clock, using stopwatches.
Miss Levine complains that Mrs. Reisman "demonized" Kinsey's science, but Table 34 does that by itself. The 1998 British television documentary "Kinsey's Paedophiles" validated all of Mrs. Reisman's findings about Kinsey's pedophile experiments and discovered that some of Kinsey's child data came from a German Nazi pedophile "researcher."
In her University of Minnesota-approved tract, Miss Levine says Kinsey, whose research underlies the entire field of human sexuality as taught and practiced today, misidentified children's "infantile bucking, straining, and relaxation" as "orgasm." As a reporter, Miss Levine should quote Kinsey, who instead wrote that the children experienced: "Extreme tension with violent convulsion twitching violent convulsions of the whole body sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) sadistic or masochistic reactions collapse fainting excruciating pain" and they would even "fight away from the partner," to "avoid climax." Kinsey concluded the children enjoyed the experience.
Thanks to Mrs. Reisman, we know the entire accredited "human sexuality field" descends from Kinsey's research. Today's "real sex researchers" are using ivory-tower positions to explode the last taboo adults having sex with children. If Miss Levine and her pedophile-advocate comrades have their way, thousands of parents will find themselves helpless to protect their children from predatory adults.

STEVE BALDWIN
Executive director
Council for National Policy
Fairfax, Va.

Chemical-makers reap benefits of genetically tweaked canola

In the April 29 Op-Ed piece "Let them eat canola," Eric Peters attempts to make the case that genetically engineered canola seeds that are made more resistant to specific herbicides result in "less spraying by farmers and less chemical run-off in adjacent streams, lakes and aquifers" and that they will "create a healthier and more environmentally friendly world." His explanation defies logic.
Though farmers do spray herbicides to kill the weeds that are competing with their crops, they are limited in the quantity that can be used before the herbicides begin to kill the crop itself thus the desire to make the crop more resistant to the herbicide. The herbicide-resistant crop would allow farmers to use more herbicide to kill the weeds more effectively without harming the crop. The idea is not to reduce the amount of herbicide used by farmers.
I would ask Mr. Peters and your readers to answer this question: Why would scientists spend millions of dollars making crops more resistant to herbicides and pesticides if the plan was for farmers to use less of them? It doesn't add up.
When you add in the fact that the funding for the research and development of the herbicide- and pesticide-resistant crops comes from the makers of herbicides and pesticides, the picture becomes all the more clear that the desired outcome is increased sales and use of these poisons.
It's not Science 101, it's simple logic.

DAVE WILLIAMS
Mount Airy, Md.

Compared to Air Force, Glendening is flying in style

I had to laugh when I read that Parris N. Glendening, Maryland's Democratic governor, had justified spending $4.9 million on a new airplane because his current aircraft is 20 years old and therefore "unreliable" ("Flights of Glendening fancy," Editorials, May 1).
With Air Force pilots flying combat missions in aircraft approaching 50 years old (B-52s), perhaps the governor should re-evaluate his justification.

LT. COL. KENT D. JOHNSON
Air Force, retired
Stafford, Va.

Lt. Col. Kent D. Johnson is a former fighter pilot and air-campaign planner.

In praise of steel tariffs

Bruce Bartlett's April 22 Commentary column, "Suffering steel tariff side effects," characterizes the imposition of Section 201 tariffs on steel as "protectionist" and a failure of the Bush administration. Several of Mr. Bartlett's arguments need to be challenged.
First, some definitions are in order. Free trade, as Mr. Bartlett uses it, means open, unfettered trade between nations. Protectionism, on the other hand, is anything that prevents free trade. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. There are rules governing trade between nations, and free trade can exist only when the rules are followed.
In the case of steel, the International Trade Centre (ITC) conducted an exhaustive investigation and determined in a 6-0 vote that the rules were being violated by our trading partners, thus causing injury to the U.S. steel industry.
Although Mr. Bartlett doesn't mention the term dumping, it belongs in this discussion. A nation is guilty of dumping when it charges a lower price for its exported goods than it charges for them in its domestic market or a lower price than the actual cost of production, to which import duties and transportation charges are then added.
The market into which a nation dumps its products is hurt by this practice because domestic companies producing the same products cannot compete against the lower-priced products. Dumping violates U.S. trade laws, and yet many of our trading partners engage in this practice when exporting their steel to our shores. Therefore, Section 201 was the appropriate remedy. President Bush acted correctly and legally once the ITC made its determination. Would Mr. Bartlett suspend our trade laws to avoid being accused of protectionism?
On the subject of retaliation ("side effects," according to Mr. Bartlett), I find interesting the speed with which the European Union was able to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products. Please note that the union didn't conduct an exhaustive investigation to determine whether we had broken any trade laws. As one writer put it, "The European Union sits down over a cup of coffee and just decides to initiate a safeguard action."
The facts involving dumping are irrefutable, so what message is the union sending us? It would seem to be: Never mind those pesky rules, if you're protecting your market, we're going to retaliate.
On the subject of China, Mr. Bartlett cited a recent visit to China by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, wherein the Chinese asked why they should open their markets to U.S. goods when we slap large tariffs on their steel.
Mr. Bartlett claims that Mr. Zoellick didn't have a satisfactory answer, which I seriously doubt. I would imagine that Mr. Zoellick told them that U.S. law prohibits the importation of products that do not comply with our anti-dumping regulations. Surely, he likely told them, China will want to continue exporting other products to the United States that do comply with our trade laws and, in turn, open Chinese markets to U.S. goods lawfully exported to China. Besides, the tariffs are only in effect for three years while our domestic steel industry recovers from past injuries. Or, he could have stated simply that steel is off the table until 2005, when the tariffs expire.
Does Mr. Bartlett believe China will end trade with the United States because of the steel tariffs? I think not. The Chinese are smarter than that.
On the subject of national defense, Mr. Bartlett dismisses the argument that the United States must maintain a healthy domestic steel industry in order to produce tanks, ships, etc. It's true that today's military doesn't use as much steel as it once did, but it still consumes many thousands of tons of steel, without which the steel industry's plight would be worse. Why don't we look at steel the same way we look at high-technology products instead of simply throwing in the towel? We produce some of the best steel in the world and with fewer man-hours per ton than most countries.
We also protect our environment with expensive air- and water-pollution controls that many foreign countries simply ignore. Mr. Bartlett would have us stockpile steel for our military or buy steel from Canada rather than provide temporary relief to an "injured" domestic industry. What does he have against steel?
Finally, what will happen if we become dependent on foreign steel? Will our trading partners use it as a weapon against us the way some use our dependence on foreign oil? You bet they will, if it serves their political will. If the events since September 11 haven't opened America's eyes to how few friends we have in the world, I don't know what will.
Again, President Bush was right to enforce the trade laws and prevent an eventual dependence on foreign steel. Mr. Bartlett has it wrong we need a strong domestic steel industry. It is far better to endure the short-term side effects of retaliation by some of our trading partners than to see the steel industry listed among the death notices.
The steel industry will successfully compete head-to-head with anyone in the world, but it cannot do so against competitors who continually dump their products in our market at illegally low prices. That's why we have trade laws.

RICHARD W. RESSLER
North Olmsted, Ohio

Postal privatization spells chaos

In his April 27 Commentary column, "The price of postal monopoly," Doug Bandow argues that eliminating the postal monopoly, thereby permitting private companies to deliver first-class mail, would result in "better service at less cost." Such a move certainly would reduce postal rates, but only because private companies would pay workers much less and eliminate benefits that U.S. Postal Service (USPS) employees receive.
As for "better service" and "greater efficiency," that is doubtful. A postal system consisting of local or regional delivery firms would have to arrange mail handoffs between them. In order to track mail and assign responsibility for delivery problems, each envelope would have to be stamped for time and identity at each handoff. Without such a dating process, firms would be tempted to maximize profits by processing such handoff mail at the lowest cost times, delaying deliveries. This certainly would be accompanied by much finger-pointing and blame-shifting as those firms accused each other of being the cause of delays, lost mail, etc. Does this sound efficient?
Firms with national coverage would avoid the handoff problem, but substantial inefficiencies would result from having two or more delivery carriers serving each customer. The likely outcome would be one or two national postal firms compelled by the threat of competition to employ a low-wage, limited-benefit work force.
However, lower costs could be achieved without this disruption by permitting USPS to contract out its work after firing the existing postal workers, whom Mr. Bandow believes "to be the highest paid semiskilled employees in the world." If the actual goal is to move the 700,000-plus USPS workers out of the middle class and into unemployment or the ranks of the working poor in order to reduce postal rates, Mr. Bandow should directly advocate such a change instead of invoking free-market efficiency gains, international comparisons and the supposed higher costs of rural delivery.

FRED WELLS
Shepherdstown, W.Va.

No deception about 'emergency contraception'

I am writing in response to the April 14 Commentary Forum piece about emergency contraception (EC), "Easy access, appalling results," by Susan E. Wills of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Mrs. Wills appears concerned that there has been inadequate disclosure of information about the risks of EC and yet, strangely enough, she opposes the passage of the very bill that would alleviate such concerns.
Mrs. Wills voices certain qualms regarding the Emergency Contraception Education Act. She claims falsely that the bill would add $10 million in taxes to fund a disinformation campaign. In truth, this bill would serve to lift the oppressive veil of silence that shrouds this issue.
Nine out of 10 women of reproductive age remain unaware of the availability of EC. The Emergency Contraception Education Bill would authorize a much-needed but nonexistent public education and outreach effort to provide women, physicians and other health care providers with information regarding the availability of a safe and effective birth control option.
It is important to understand that EC is most effective when taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. An EC education campaign would enable women to make an informed choice after weighing the possible risks about a very effective birth control option. To say that the dissemination of much-needed information would lead to increased promiscuity is a preposterous argument. Shall we be content to exist by the old adage "ignorance is bliss"? To be afraid of the power of knowledge will not cure the larger ills of the society it will only serve to inflame them.

DR. WENDY CHAVKIN
Chairwoman
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
New York

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide