Letters to the Editor

Cable regulation ’a la carte’

Alfred Liggins’ Monday Op-Ed column, “Destroying diversity,” correctly identifies many adverse effects of proposed “a la carte” cable regulation. One additional key threat is that “a la carte” could drastically reduce citizen access to the workings of government, education and diversity of opinion provided by C-SPAN and state noncommercial public-affairs channels.

Cable companies fund and carry noncommercial public-affairs channels on the basic cable tier as a voluntary public service. Adoption of “a la carte” could greatly limit viewer access and possibly eliminate many of these channels.

Observers from both ends of the political spectrum have hailed access to C-SPAN and state public-affairs channels as essential to democracy in America.

C-SPAN and other public-affairs channels are used widely in schools to teach politics, government, current events, history and other subjects.

Noncommercial public-affairs channels depend on exposure in the basic cable tier to attract audiences, unlike commercial channels, which use marketing.

PAUL MILLER

San Carlos, Calif.

What a nightmare

I am writing about the letter from the National People’s Action co-chairwomen about the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (Monday). They state, “The DREAM Act would give graduating high-school seniors who were brought to this country as children a chance to legalize their status by removing barriers from federal law that prevent states from offering in-state tuition to them.” What gives anyone the right to overturn extant laws on immigration? We need law-abiding citizens, not bullies and cheats who make a mockery of our laws.

My second point regards the statement, “Unlike what was inaccurately portrayed in commentaries, NPA prides itself on its discipline and obedience to civil authorities.” The very concept of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants should itself be illegal. A U.S. citizen who lives in Pennsylvania should have more right to attend the University of Maryland than someone whose parents have violated the immigration laws by sneaking into this country, thereby raising the cost of education of our own children, frequently receiving medical care at the expense of our own indigents, and often absorbing welfare and subsistence funds designed to alleviate conditions for our own citizens.

The Constitution clearly delineates the rights of Congress. One of the most important is the right to regulate our borders and immigration. It cannot pass laws making retroactive rights available to lawbreakers. This DREAM Act is, in fact, a nightmare, not a dream.

RODNEY GALLES

Millersville, Md

Improving Israel’s hand

I am astonished that coverage of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s latest plan is dealt with exclusively in terms of whether or not the United States or Egypt approves of it. Aren’t we missing a key party, the Palestinians? By what right does the United States, Egypt or even Israel determine the fate of these people without consultation and, it seems, without reference to international law?

Has the world not moved past the stage when regional powers sit around a map and carve it up by mutual agreement to meet their needs, without regard to the inhabitants?

MIRIAM M. REIK

New York

•

Regarding “U.S., Egypt back Gaza pullout” by Joseph Curl (Page 1, Tuesday): This qualified commitment by Egypt (ratifying the U.S. commitment) adds to Israel’s bargaining chips, helping the prospect of peace in the Middle East. ThiscompoundsIsrael’s unique and decisive opportunity in the confluence of three positive trends.

First, Israel has the nearly full faith and credit of the Bush administration. Israel stands under the umbrella of the unipolar world. Israel could be persuaded to narrow the boundaries of the security fence to hew more closely to the outline of a “road map.” Israel can afford to be magnanimous as well as take the high road when America stands behind it in the interim arrangement. Moreover, with the assassination of Hamas “spiritual” leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, Israel will not be perceived as departing Gaza from a position of weakness, as perhaps was the case with Lebanon.

Second, with the United States and some of our allies keen on spreading the tolerance inherent in democracy — which is diametrically opposed to militant fundamentalist Islam — throughout the Middle East, Israel has an additional instant added to this unique moment. For example, the Iraqi Governing Council welcomed Iraqi Jews.

Third, the international community is assisting in disarming WMD-capable countries, finally giving U.S. “adventurism” a stamp of approval. Nonproliferation is opening Libya, of course, and, begrudgingly and involuntarily, Iran. Shi’ite Iran may become more pliant, however, after hosting a council of the mostly Sunni terrorist organizations and then subsequently witnessing the no-doubt Sunni-perpetrated massacres of Shi’ite pilgrims in their holy places in Iraq.

ONA BUNCE

Falls Church

Building an ally

I was disappointed in the column “Is war a place for a tofu president?” (Pruden on Politics, Tuesday). Sometimes opponents of the Bush-Cheney policy in Iraq latch on to casualties, referring to Iraq as another Vietnam. President Bush latchedontoamilitary takeover of Baghdad, declaring “mission accomplished.” Both sides have been wrong.

The column included the usual suggestion by the president’s supporters, in this instance quoting British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that those in the Western world not supporting the Bush-Cheney policy are “if not half-hoping we fail,” at least taking pleasure in it when we do. Like most Americans, I hope we succeed fabulously, but long-term success is more likely with a more internationalized effort to hold elections in Iraq as quickly as possible. This will give us the best chance to have more to show for the hundreds of American lives lost in Iraq than another Saudi Arabia — a government that’s friendly to its best oil customer but governing a population that supports or is indifferent to terrorist attacks against Americans.

BOB DOERSAM

Pickerington, Ohio

Like son, like father

Randall Terry of Operation Rescue is a man who has failed in his duty as both a person of faith and as a father. Mr. Terry has used the same tactics he employed to degrade women in assigning his own son second-class status.

He has questioned his son’s religious dedication, closed his home’s door to his child and aired Jamiel’s dirty laundry — including claims of his son’s misbehaving and dropping out of school. It is not, as Mr. Terry asserts, Out magazine that has the agenda here. It is clearly Mr. Terry himself who is on a mission, faithfully throwing stones from his own glass house.

He even goes so far as to accuse his son of “prostituting” his name, but he finds no irony in prostituting his own misguided faith to malign and demean his own child. It is he, and not his son Jamiel, who needs reparative therapy.

STEVE RALLS

Washington