Letters to the Editor

OPINION:

’Cultural terrorists’ target Boy Scouts

Unable to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to force the Boy Scouts to abandon their moral principles, radical homosexual activists turn to more pliable politicians to do their dirty work and punish the Scouts for barring openly homosexual individuals from their ranks (“Scouts must pay $200,000 for rent,” Nation, Friday).

In the latest example of what amounts to cultural terrorism, officials in Philadelphia have been prevailed upon to increase the rent the local Boy Scouts chapter pays for its city headquarters from a nominal $1 to $200,000, ostensibly because the Boy Scouts are engaging in “discrimination” against homosexuals.

City of Brotherly Love, indeed.

Undoubtedly, the Boys Scouts provide Philadelphians a tremendous bang for their buck. Run mostly by volunteer adult leaders, the Boy Scouts of America has done an amazing job of promoting positive character traits in untold numbers of American boys, including the 64,000 Scouts in Philly and its suburbs.

But for the cultural terrorists, it’s all about tearing down, not building up. Rather than develop their own outlets for like-minded individuals, they seek to punish a stalwart American institution that does only good. Who suffers? Why, “the 30 new Cub Scout packs, or [the] 800 needy kids going to [Boy Scout] summer camp” that the $199,999 in additional rent could pay for, according to the spokesman for the local Boy Scouts Council.

The politicians and bureaucrats should be ashamed of themselves for succumbing to the radical agenda of the cultural terrorists, but shame is in woefully short supply among their morally bankrupt ranks.

It is up to the voters to cast out politicians who promote the crippling of valuable American institutions such as the Boy Scouts.

SAMUEL R. LEWIS

Oak Hill, Va.

Ignoring economic realities

Incessantly repeating that “U.S. growth… has been weighed down by soaring deficits with China” does nothing to render true this false bit of conventional wisdom (“China won’t adjust currency,” Page 1, Saturday). Indeed, it is false on too many levels to list here.

Most fundamentally, the flip side of a rising U.S. trade deficit is a rising U.S. capital-account surplus — meaning a hefty inflow of capital into America. More capital means lower real rates of interest. Lower real rates of interest mean more investment. More investment raises worker productivity. Rising worker productivity raises real wages. And rising real wages enable Americans to enjoy higher and higher standards of living.

DONALD J. BOUDREAUX

Chairman

Department of Economics

George Mason University

Fairfax

Chinese ambition, American decadence

George Lesser expressed the usual awe-struck reaction to Shanghai (“Oil for the lamps of China,” Commentary, yesterday). I first saw the magnificent skyline at night, on a long cab ride from Hongqiao International Airport down to the waterfront Bund, across from the imposing new developments in Pudong.

The extravagant architecture makes a sharp contrast to the more utilitarian designs seen in Tokyo, and is meant to make a statement about China’s rise. But Mr. Lesser does not understand how this rise is being accomplished. Beijing runs a large trade surplus despite massive imports of oil and raw materials to feed its factories. Its policy is to export manufactured goods, not import them.

Except for some luxury items, the needs of consumers will be met by domestic production. Some of this production may be done by foreign firms (usually in partnership with Chinese interests), but this will not provide many benefits to foreign economies. Indeed, the pattern has been to move plants from America to China. A great many of the high-rises that impressed Mr. Lesser bear the names of American, European and Japanese firms that have set up operations in Shanghai.

Chinese policy concentrates on production, which generates income and wealth, while Americans obsess about a misleading form of “cheap” consumption financed by debt. Americans import five times as much as they export to China, and these profits have given Beijing the largest cash reserves in the world. Between Chinese ambition and American decadence, it is clear which society is more committed to building for the future.

WILLIAM HAWKINS

Senior Fellow

U.S. Business and Industry Council

Washington

Cowardice from Mr. Knapp

The designation of George Washington University President Steven Knapp as a “knave” is quite appropriate, and spotlights the continuing bias problem at GW and at our universities in general (“Nobles and Knaves,” Editorial, Saturday). Referring the racist flier case to Student Judicial Services is a cop-out.

Seven confessed creators and distributors of the flier, whatever their dishonorable intention, intimidated Muslim and Arab students on campus with an overtly racist message. The fact that they had intended to disparage the Young America’s Foundation by attributing the flier to it in hopes of inciting retribution against the YAF, is in itself despicable, but more importantly, it does not absolve the seven perpetrators of committing the hateful act.

Would that be true, the defense for every person found to have professed or instigated racial hatred would be that he or she was merely expressing the sentiments of “the other guy.” To suggest that the flier distribution was some sort of educational process — as the seven students maintain — is utter nonsense, and intellectually dishonest.

The GW seven are guilty of having distributed racist material on campus and ought to be subjected to the severest of penalties under university policy.

Mr. Knapp’s failure to pursue administrative action against the GW seven is, as the editorial noted, nothing short of cowardice.

BILL ELDARD

Burke

Kyoto on steroids

If Oliver North’s column “Permission slip for the sea,” (Commentary, Oct. 14) is correct, it would seem that Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., who I respect (usually), and others in Congress are once again entertaining nationally suicidal ideas in the name of “One World Government.”

Is it true that the Law of the Sea Treaty would not only subject our country, our Navy and more to judgments imposed by unelected international legislative bodies, including many of our sworn enemies, but would also subject us to amendments that signatories don’t even have a voice in or vote on?

If so, this is Kyoto on steroids, with not only grave economic implications, but also serious national security constraints, all imposable without recourse.

Is Mr. Biden simply trying to put us in handcuffs to see if we can manage a Houdini-like escape, or has he lost his marbles?

BRIAN PALAZZOLO

Alexandria