- The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Giving up on baseball

As a residential outsider but a restored baseball fan, I want to state my opposition to District Mayor Anthony A. Williams’ proposal of 100 percent public funding of a baseball stadium (“Deal puts District back in the ballgame,” Page 1, yesterday).

I “quit” baseball some years ago when the players went on strike because those millionaires couldn’t get a settlement on how much they should be paid. I used to play for the fun of the game, and most players of past generations did also. However, today’s crybabies with bank accounts think the world owes them a living as well. The owners are as bad, if not worse.

Baseball is a multibillion-dollar industry, and the owners could well afford to build their own stadiums. To make the public pay for stadiums, and then also pay exorbitant fees to see the games and $5 for a beer is obscene. It happened here in Texas as well.

I’m going to boycott baseball again, even though this latest flap is outside my state.


Livingston, Texas

Stop the experiment

I agree with Cal Thomas about the negative impact on our military if women are placed in combat (“Women in combat (again),” Commentary, yesterday). However, if women are given a pass from fighting, why are they in the military?

Every member of the military should be capable and required to enter combat if needed because the primary mission of the military is to fight and win wars; a civilian force can do nearly everything else.

Servicewomen are promoted to higher ranks just like men and receive the same benefits. (Pregnant servicewomen actually receive additional benefits and are very costly and disruptive to the military). Yet conservatives want only men to fight and possibly die in combat.

We are at war. Men, and some women, are dying in Iraq partly because of a shortage of combatants. It is time to stop playing PC games and end the left-wing social experiment of women in the military. This could be done gradually by accepting only male recruits. Over time, this would increase our combat strength about 15 percent with no added costs. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld could spearhead this all-male recruitment effort as part of his transformation of the military.


Jamison, Pa.

Bias in Montgomery County

Regarding the article “Montgomery set on pilot sex-ed class (Metropolitan, Dec. 15), the Montgomery County Board of Education believes its new sex education curriculum will teach students about tolerance for homosexuals and their families. As a member of the committee that drafted the curriculum for approval by the Board of Education, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) can confirm that the board approved as school resources literature published by homosexual activist groups that makes negative references about former homosexuals. So how is this tolerance?

The board appointed PFOX to serve on the committee as a representative of former homosexuals in order to receive viewpoints from all segments of the community, yet it approved hateful literature against the former-homosexual community despite our objections.

The board refuses to explain why it approved these and other homosexual advocacy materials as school “resources” for its new sex education curriculum and rejected materials about former homosexuals. Approving one sexual orientation over another is discriminatory and hurts our schools. We are still waiting for the board’s answer.


Executive director

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays

Fort Belvoir

Doubts about Hillary

At first glance, I also was impressed with the strong words of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants—(“God bless Hillary Clinton?!” Dec. 15). However, a quick check of her voting record left me open-mouthed; she has an F- from BetterImmigration.com.

Mrs. Clinton has co-sponsored legislation for amnesty for illegal aliens, has been silent in the face of runaway legal immigration that the Census Bureau projects will drive our population to that of China and India by the end of the century, and a little more than a week ago she voted for the September 11 commission legislation void of the critical driver’s license verification section.

I can think of the word God and Clinton in the same sentence, but it is not the one Tony Blankley has constructed in his Op-Ed column.


El Cerrito, Calif.

Bin Laden’s whereabouts still unknown

Arnaud de Borchgrave erred when he said Osama bin Laden is hatching his plots from “his secret base in Pakistan.” (“Osama’s new strategy,” Commentary, Tuesday).

The Pakistani military and the intelligence services have thoroughly searched the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region and have drawn a blank. There has not been even a single report of a sighting of bin Laden. Mr. de Borchgrave’s remark that President Pervez Musharraf “is also widely despised by the majority of the population” of Pakistan is unkind and unfair. Not only the majority of Pakistanis but practically all world leaders have praised his leadership to improve the lot of Pakistanis, and his courage and unstinting commitment in the war on terror.


Press counselor

Embassy of Pakistan


Coloradans vote ‘personal values’

In Tuesday’s front-page article “Pledge protester faces recall vote,” David Habecker, a two-term member of the Board of Trustees of the town of Estes Park, Colo., fallaciously asserts that the recall vote he faces (for sitting through the Pledge of Allegiance) threatens to disqualify him unconstitutionally from public office as the result of a religious test.

I hope the voters of Estes Park are unpersuaded by this fallacy and will understand the fullness of their liberty in the distinction between qualifying for public office and being elected to public office. Qualifications (such as residency or age) must be met for a candidate to take part in a contest. The Constitution restricts election officials from using religion as a qualification. Voters choose from among qualified candidates, but their votes are not part of the qualification or disqualification of a candidate. Facing a recall (because of personal beliefs) is not equivalent to facing disqualification, just as losing a contest is not the same as being disqualified from the contest.

Mr. Habecker apparently already has met the qualifications for public office without being subjected to a religious test; now the people may vote freely for or against him according to their own judgment of the kind of public official they want. The discretion individual voters employ in electing or recalling officials is not limited by the Constitution. Private citizens are free to vote according to their personal values and are free to prefer believers or unbelievers.



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