Letters to the Editor

’Unearthing’ not-so-secret documents

In the editorial “The probers and the NEA” (Wednesday), you state that the National Education Association has been “reluctant” to reveal its activities to its more than 2.7 million members, and the article refers to certain documents that were “unearthed” by Mark R. Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation. These “unearthed” documents are NEA’s detailed budget reports that we distribute annually to more than 20,000 NEA members, leaders and staff. The short of the matter is that no organization does more than we do to keep our members fully informed about our activities and expenditures.

NEA does, indeed, pursue “a robust political agenda,” but, contrary to Mr. Levin’s assertion, “it does so within the rules that govern tax-exempt organizations.” That has been the conclusion reached by the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Commission in previous investigations, and we are confident that it will be the conclusion reached by the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service when their current investigations are completed.

The Washington Times quotes Mr. Levin as saying that Landmark isn’t concerned about NEA’s involvement in political activity “as long as it does so within the rules that govern tax-exempt organizations.” If that were true, The Washington Times would have nothing more to say on these matters.

REG WEAVER

President

National Education Association

Washington

A habit of distortion

The purpose of the scientists’ statement, Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking (“Scientists vs. the administration,” Editorial, Tuesday) is not to criticize the administration but to attempt to remedy the problem as we see it.

I have advised Republican and Democratic administrations dating to Eisenhower, worked closely with Donald Rumsfeld in 1998 on the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, and, for the record, strongly support the new land-mine policy of the Bush administration.

My purpose in being one of the initial signers of the statement was to raise a warning flag about the serious consequences of suppressing and distorting scientific knowledge that has become all too common with this administration.

RICHARD L. GARWIN

IBM Fellow Emeritus

Thomas J. Watson Research Center

Yorktown Heights, N.Y. her logic about the whole being greater than its parts would justify ethnic cleansing. We could eliminate a few stupid people because society as whole is more important than one of its parts. But her logic is wrong for another reason. Fetal tissue is not part of the mother’s body. You might call the fetus a leach, but not an appendix. Someone should have taught her the scientific fact that life begins at conception. And, obviously, if it’s a human conception, it’s a human life.

CHARLES J. MCCARTHY

Rockville

Sharing the pain of terror

I believe that the article “Terror and tolerance” by Jean-Christophe Mounicq (Op-Ed, Tuesday) is an aggressive, provocative, mistaken, subjective piece of writing that does not deserve and qualify for space in a reputable newspaper like The Washington Times.

I will not mention the details of the wrong numbers he provided about historical events in his article. Rather, I will focus on his subjectivity, provocative way of reasoning things and generalizing sensitive and complex situations in an unacceptable way.

I am a Turkish citizen and Muslim who believes in secularism. My country has suffered separatist terror for many years and recently has been attacked by terrorists who are connected to radical Islamist groups. Turkish people suffered for a long time from terror, so for them it’s easy to understand other nations feelings when they are hit by terror. We cried together when we saw innocent people throwing themselves to death from the Twin Towers during the September 11 attacks. We condemned this murder in every platform.

When the terrorists bombed the synagogues and the British Embassy in Istanbul, we again cried together. In a service for the victims, which were not only Jews, but Brits, Turks, Muslims, and Christians, I represented the Turkish Student Association of George Washington University as the vice president. The service was in a synagogue (Adas Israel Congregation), but Jews, Muslims, Christians, Brits, Americans, Israelis and Turks attended the service. All were there for the same reason: To respect the victims, pray for them, and condemn terrorism.

What Mr. Mounicq misses is that terrorism is a global problem, and it selects random victims. He also misses that terrorism cannot be addressed by separating, classifying and blaming people. His approach makes things only more complicated and plants seeds of hatred and mistrust.

To sum up, I’d like to mention that I found his approach and wording very provocative and shallow. I’m very disappointed that this article of low quality found a place in your newspaper.

SARP YELETAYSI

Research assistant

Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management

George Washington University

Washington

Now is not the time to hesitate

Viewing the killing, maiming, burning and hanging of ourfellowAmericans in Fallujah (“Four Americans mutilated,” Page 1, Thursday), one inevitably thinks of Somalia.

It also conjures up vestiges of Beirut. The commonality with Beirut is powerful. In Beirut, like Fallujah, our forces were in defensive or stand-down posture. But it is the lesson of Beirut that must be applied: Either pacify that town or get out. U.S. citizens or soldiers should not be prey to zealots.

As one who lost his brother to a terrorist truck bombing, I have found it difficult to recover from such a cowardly act inflicted on innocents. I cannot even imagine the grieving of those who are relatives and friends of those who were bombed, set ablaze, beaten and hanged for public display.

There is only one way to remedy zealotry: We must pacify Fallujah now.

MIKE WILEY

Champlin, Minn.

Juiced salaries just part of the game

It is truly disturbing to see an article in your paper that advocates socialist positions such as artificial restrictions on an individual’s income, even if the piece in question is found on the sports pages (“Where have you gone, Harry Caray?” Baseball 2004, Thursday). Dick Heller believes that since the average baseball players’ salary exceeds $2.5 million, their collective bargaining rights should be curtailed and compensation artificially restricted. I did not realize that the political right now felt that it was appropriate for individuals to cede rights once they have attained a certain level of compensation. I would expect this pathetic argument only to be found in some leftist tome gathering dust somewhere in Moscow or Berkeley, Calif.

Why should The Washington Times abdicate firmly held ideological beliefs regarding the free market just because the subject is sports? Will The Times soon be advocating spending caps on campaign finance and health care?

BOB TUFTS

Forest Hills, N.Y.