ESR | The readers write back

Then write a letter to ESR for publication! Names withheld by request and all letters are subject to editing for length, clarity or language. Letters from anywhere on the political spectrum are welcome and will be printed. Please state whether you wish your name to appear with the email.

web posted May 23, 2005

Re: Showdown at the U.N. corral by Henry Lamb (May 16, 2005)

I am surprised that a reputable web site such as yours accepts such uninformed contributions as that by Henry Lamb on the UN and the law of the sea. Anyone who reads the Law of the Sea treaty section (Part XI) dealing with the seabed beyond national jurisdiction will recognize immediately that the United Nations as no connection with the International Seabed Authority. That agency is run entirely by its members and has nothing to do with the United Nations. Ironically Henry Lamb in his ignorance opposes US participation in the treaty despite the fact that the United States as a party to the treaty would have a decisive voice in allocating any funds that might be generated by deep seabed mining. Even without US participation none of the funds would go the United Nations.

William T. Burke
Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington

Henry Lamb responds:

The name of the treaty that gives birth to the International Seabed Authority is "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea." To say that the U.N. has "no connection" to the International Seabed Authority is to say that the parent has no connection with the child. Perhaps the enlightened professor should read the history of the treaty which is the outgrowth of extensive United Nations actions dating back to 1958. Enough said.

Re: A bridge too far for Senate Democrats by Carol Deviance (May 16, 2005)

Carol Devine-Molin's article "A bridge too far for Senate Democrats" reveals that she is either ignorant of recent history or an extreme hypocrite. The cry for a 'yes or no' vote on all judges is a very recent view for Republicans. In Clinton's adminsitration, Republicans refused to give an up or down vote to 72 of Clinton's judicial nominations. Republican fillibuster and related tactics prevented 72 nominees from getting a vote. It is hypocritical now to say this is about fairness, when it's really just about the worse sort of partisan power grab. The Republicans have used the filibuster time and time again when it suited them. Now they want to squash it. That's hypocrisy.

Chris

web posted May 9, 2005

Re: Wrong address, please return to sender! by Michael Moriarty (May 2, 2005)

Michael Moriarty hit the nail on the head with his latest column. The middle class will pay the bill for Iraq with both blood and dollars. And why don't the Saudi's contribute, and why don't we vigorously pursue alternate fuel sources.

Mr. Moriarty is right on target with the whole column..

Sandy

web posted May 2, 2005

Re: The left's discontent with Pope Benedict XVI by Carol Moline-Devine (April 25, 2005)

Please thank Carol Devine-Molin for her recent piece on the liberal backlash on my new Pope, Benedict XVI.

While I certainly understand that notions like Obedience, Sacrifice and Restraint are no longer considered mainstream, these values always have been and continue to be the epitome of Roman Catholicism. Pope Benedict appears to embody most of these traits. Is it then unusual to expect the "Head Catholic" to act like a Catholic?

I find it slightly stranger than usual that every non-religious, irreligious and anti-religious person with a keyboard has his or her own scheme for the reformation of the Catholic Church. One proclaimation after another, (typically starting out, " This would be the perfect time..." to embrace gay marriage; install women as priests; allow priests to marry; allow abortion; reverse 2000 years of doctrine on contraception or begin worshipping the Great Stone Owl"), on how best to moderate or modernize the Church, make it more Inclusive or Sensitive to a broader spectrum of congregation, etc. This is religion. It deals in moral absolutes. The spiritual life as defined by the Catholic Church is not supposed to be easy.... Never was never will be... Salvation is not a rigged game, nor is it supposed to be. Regardless of what the elite illumes wish it to be, doctrine is meant to show the way to salvation, not institutionalize acceptance of sin and human failings. Particularly, Church doctrine is not meant to accomodate varieties of sin that have become political movements unto themselves.

While I shouldn't be all that surprised by the Gladys Kravitz routine over the back hedge by the Great Liberal minds of our day, I find it surprising they know so little about the institution they are so revolted by and so moved to see change. Then again it's exactly the same patter that emerged after President Bush's 2004 Victory, ("This would be the perfect time for him to rerach out across the aisle, [embrace our agenda], and 'heal the division'").

No doubt this Cadre of Enlightenment will begin throwing their weight towards the secularization of Islam next....

"What would Gay, differently-abled, recovering Muhammed do?" I'm sure he'd be happy to pitch out whatever bedrock values and philosophy that've become difficult or unfashionable over the past 1400 years or so...

Well I'm off to find some Halaal Bacon.

Bob McGovern

Atlanta, GA

It should be understood of the billion members of the catholic church, the majority live in third world countries. This requires the Catholic Church to take a position on social issues that is not offensive to this large majority. Most of these countries have patronistic cultures that consider homosexuality a capital offense. When was the last time you heard the Catholic Church speak out against circumcising women?

John Roberts