HUNT COUNTRY
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s Mr.
Hunt's Political Chase:
Mr. Tyrrell's column does an excellent job of analyzing Mr. Hunt's problem, a common one shared by many on the left. They are frustrated to the point of distraction, about their inability to get the American people to join lock-step with the "true believers" led by the Hunts, Raines, Clintons, ad nauseam, and see the "light."
I believe that Al has "gone around the bend" caused, in large
part by being the "token liberal" that few people read and even
fewer take seriously. Mr. Tyrrell begins the column asking "...what
might be prescribed for him." This is a question I have asked both
myself and the Journal, but I've phrased it as; "So when
does Al retire?"
-- Tim Reed
Denver, CO
About five years ago, I sent Mr. Peter Kann (CEO Dow Jones/Wall
Street Journal) a gift subscription to Investors Business
Daily. My note advised Mr. Kann that he would like
IBD better than WSJ because Al Hunt was not on
any of the pages of IBD. Mr. Kann never acknowledged my
gift.
-Jack Hughes
Chicago, IL
MALING IT IN
Re: Reid Collins's A
Bridge Too Far:
I just finished reading "A Bridge Too Far" and want to ask: Is Mr. Collins aware that this is the 21st century? His article is horribly illogical and seems like something that should have been written back in the '50s.
Mr. Collins speaks about the problems of children being left motherless if their mom is called into active duty in the military and is killed in action. While this is very true and very tragic, it is not exclusively a problem for women. What about single fathers who leave children behind? They must also find someone to take care of their children. Perhaps there is a mother that is alive and in the picture, and perhaps there is not. Mr. Reid does not even discuss this possibility, except in his last line where he states that it is better for men to leave children orphaned than for women.
Perhaps a better argument could have been made for removing all single-parents from the military. That would at least have made for a consistent argument.
Mr. Collins should also be ashamed of using the example of an abused child in Texas to advance his position. Is he really suggesting that this incident happened because the mom was called into duty, and not because the grandmother had some sort of dysfunction? What about other single parents who have left their children with grandparents? Did the grandparents in general abuse the grandchildren? What about men who left their children with the mother and the mother subsequently abused the child? Mr. Reid doesn't even discuss these possibilities.
The fact is, this was one isolated incident. It's like saying
that we should take away the children of all women who are
suffering from postpartum depression because one or two have killed
their children. One person's pain and dysfunction should not be
used to brand an entire group of people. Unfortunately, Mr. Reid
plays directly into a stereotype that has not done the children of
this country any great favors. He believes that the place of a
mother is with her children, and a child's need for his father is
insignificant. This myth disparages the contributions that a woman
can make to the workplace, the impact that a man can make to the
home, and the need of a child for both of its parents.
-- Paul Heer
Saint Louis, Missouri
I am a man that finds Reid Collins' argument sexist. As long as women are expected to be breadwinners it isn't fair to bar them from a career of their own choosing. Many people, men and women, use the military as an opportunity to get away from a bunch a dead-end choices.
Does a woman in the military stand a better chance of dying in combat or in a car accident? People die, and responsible parents (including women) make plans and write wills in case the unexpected happens. The idea that a widow raising children alone is less tragic than a widower raising children alone doesn't sit well with me.
Your example of Spc. Moore is as specious as any I've ever seen. If Spc. Moore was a man or a professional who had to attend a conference the same tragedy could have occurred, but then it wouldn't be news.
Your use of the phrase "her proper place" also bothers me. There was a time when the proper place of a woman included variations on three roles: mother, maid, and prostitute. I think reducing a woman's choices will end up pushing her into only those roles again. This is the goal of the sexist.
The military has changed during the last 30 years or so since it became an all-volunteer force. It changed a lot and people who are not serving in the service may not realize just how big a change it is. The military is where you can serve your country, earn a paycheck, and be promoted on your own merit.