- The Washington Times - Monday, January 13, 2003

Purity, public relations and Pakistan

Reading the letter from Col. Riaz Jafri of Rawalpindi, Pakistan ("How to keep Pakistan the 'land of the pure'," Saturday) reminded me of a scene in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." When the two outlaws arrive in Bolivia and look around, Sundance turns to Butch and asks, "What is there here that anyone could possibly want?"
No doubt, the colonel's brave countrymen who bomb buses carrying unarmed tourists and behead defenseless journalists are fine representatives of the "land of the pure." Why would anyone want to go there?

ROGER JOHNSON
Kensington



On behalf of sane Pakistanis and Pakistani-Americans, I would like to apologize for Col. Riaz Jafri's insane suggestion of banning from American homosexuals and cohabiting couples from Pakistan.
This is not the right way to protest the ill-devised Immigration and Naturalization Service procedure of fingerprinting Pakistani nationals which puts some in jail for visa violations instead of focusing on registering non-immigrant residents to curb terrorism. I wish Col. Jafri would have asked for a more humane INS approach for the registration of Pakistanis instead of suggesting very discriminatory retaliations.

DAVID KHAN
Juneau, Alaska

Pelosi's 'constituents'

Another step toward erasing the distinction between legal and illegal was taken as the federal building in San Francisco opened its doors to and began providing services for illegal aliens ("Federal facility accepts Mexican ID at Pelosi's request," Nation, Friday).
As an explanation, San Francisco's Rep. Nancy Pelosi said through her spokeswoman that "The intent of the effort is to allow these individuals … to talk to their representative."
So these illegal immigrants are Mrs. Pelosi's "constituents"? Mrs. Pelosi is a perfect example of how out of touch the governing elite is with the concerns of the American people.
A recent survey by the Center For Immigration Studies showed that reducing illegal immigration is considered a "very important" foreign-policy goal by 70 percent of Americans but only 22 percent of the elite.
Mrs. Pelosi and her Washington colleagues need to be reminded who their real constituents are.

WANDA GOMEZ-BERGER
El Cerrito, Calif.

'Gun culture'

I enjoyed reading the article "Discredited volume on U.S. gun culture going out of print" (Nation, Friday). However, I must take issue with the use of the phrase "gun culture" in the headline.
"Gun culture" may make sense insofar as it describes the small number of people who actually organize their financial, recreational and social lives around firearms. However, as used most commonly in publishing and broadcasting as a synonym for the widespread ownership of firearms the phrase is very inaccurate. It denotes that the popularity of firearms is due to habit and enculturation. In fact, the popularity of firearms is the result of practical and logical choices that free people make to solve real and important needs. It occurs with or without cultural encouragement. Whenever people are free to own firearms, large numbers of them do, because firearms are extremely useful tools.
The phrase "gun culture," used to describe all gun owners, first came into use among gun control advocates who liked the pejorative spin that could be put on the term the implication that firearms use is an irrational and outmoded holdover from the past, a tradition overdue to fade from the modern world. Liberal writers soon acquired the same affinity for the phrase.
The broad use of the phrase "gun culture" is the really offensive holdover from the days of an omnipresent liberally biased press, from which I have looked to The Washington Times for escape. I hope I don't see this phrase used again in your paper (at least without quotation marks), except in its much more limited meaning.

MERRILL GIBSON
Culver City, Calif.

No licenses for illegals

Ian de Silva ("Driving while illegal," Op-Ed, Friday) says advocates of giving illegal aliens driver's licenses argue: Illegal aliens are going to drive anyway, so why not issue them driver's licenses?
Well, the main reason not toissue a license to an illegal is that a license is a "breeder" document that allows the holder to receive other documents giving various benefits afforded legal residents. In addition, a driver's license is used to board aircraft and enter others areas that would be restricted to illegals.
If it is absolutely necessary to issue a license, then it should be stamped in large red type that the holder is an illegal alien. Unfortunately, as Mr. de Silva noted, a bill to this effect was rejected in California last fall.

BYRON SLATER
San Diego



With millions of illegal aliens, including al Qaeda partisans, in the United States, the worst thing states could do is give illegals driver's licenses. That would be a form of national suicide.
The only glue holding this country together is the rule of law. Giving lawbreakers a legal document is as absurd as giving a criminal a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It means as in the cases of illegals like the September 11 terrorists and D.C. sniper suspect John Malvo we place American citizens at risk of death and chaos.
In order to serve and protect us as they pledged when taking office, our leaders need to do the job we pay them to do and not cater to illegal aliens, all of whom are criminals subject to deportation by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE
Louisville, Colo.

Sterilization promotes responsibility

I read with great interest the negative comments several readers voiced about our $200 offer to addicts to use long-term birth control ("Virile attacks on sterilization," Letters, Friday). It truly amazes me that people evidently so educated can be so stupid. What possible good do they think comes from an addict having numerous infants taken away from her by social services? Do they think this builds her self-esteem? Maybe it ends her depression? It only leads the addict further into her addiction, as she feels more guilt for what she has done to her children. Getting on long-term birth control has been the first responsible thing many of these women have done in many years. In turn, this leads them to feel better about themselves, and often leads them to break their addiction.
All our clients who have chosen a tubal ligation have already given birth to two to 14 children and truly don't want to have anymore. Shouldn't that be their choice? They actually get more money by getting the Depo-Provera injections because they get $200 each year for as long as they want to stay on birth control. We have paid some of our Depo-Provera users more than $800 to stay on Depo-Provera. Why would an addict wait 30 days for her money (per the law) and have a surgery to collect her money when she could get it a lot quicker by getting an IUD, unless it was something she really wanted to do? Maybe these addicts have more sense then some of your readers give them credit for having.

BARBARA HARRIS
Founder
Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity (CRACK)
Orange County, Calif.


Copyright © 2018 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