]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR       [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
                  by David Solan (Freeman 06856SOLA)         (9/28/89)

                                                      August 1, 1989
Insight on the News
ATTN.: Letters Editor
3600 New York Ave., N.E.
Washington,  D.C.  20002

Letters Editor:

        In an awesome display of slanted journalism, "The Gun Lobby
Takes a Few Hits", your reporter presented a "news article" on the
NRA.  According to him, besides its usual enemies, there are a
thousand voices against the NRA: public relations managers, police
officers throughout the world, conservatives, Republicans, former
supporters, the President and his sidekick Bennett, the overwhelming
majority of the general public, and even, perhaps, 53% of its own
members!  He must have repeated or implied 15 times in that one little
article that the NRA is irrationally "uncompromising" in its wrong-
headed defense of gun rights.
        Nowhere is there any mention of the NRA's arguments against
its critics.  The voices against it are assumed to be correct ("in an
era of increasing public concern over crime, the organization's
unyielding position on what it interprets as a ... right ... has led
to criticism"), but anything it says in its defense sounds "an ominous
note".
        Nowhere is there any mention of the many voices in this land
who attack the NRA, as for instance I do, from precisely the opposite
perspective: as being far too willing to compromise people's rights of
self defense in the name of alleged "political effectiveness".  For
instance, the article repeats several times that the NRA lobbyed
against bans on "cop-killer" bullets and "assault" rifles.  Both these
statements are entirely misleading, and I suspect your reporter knew
this and is a liar.  The NRA clearly acquiesced to the ban on armor-
piercing ammunition, as it has acquiesced to many other such
government actions against the right to own and use a variety of self-
defense weaponry in the past few years, and it has been highly limited
in its criticism of George Bush in his recent cowardly submission to
the gun control advocates by agreeing to a ban on semi-automatic
rifles (without so much as even asking for a bill to sign to legalize
the process).
        There are some of us humans left in America who still have
enough "unyielding" brains to think in terms of logic. Obviously if
the argument you use to ban a type of gun (and therefore deprive the
law-abiding citizen of his right to defend himself against a criminal
with that weapon) is that a maniac can kill children with it, since a
maniac can kill children with ANY type of gun the same argument
applies to any other weapon, which means, banning the right of self-
defense. And likewise, if a certain bullet is to be banned because it
is a "cop-killer" (even though it has NEVER, in fact, been used to
kill a policeman!), since all bullets (and indeed guns) are also
potential "cop-killers", it is perfectly logical to ultimately demand
their banning as well.  This means that the government is arrogating
to itself the right to force each and every one of its citizens to be
legally disarmed and defenseless against any criminal, whether
domestic or foreign, who happens to believe he has the moral sanction
to destroy their rights --and disgustingly, all in the name of
protecting their rights, at least if they are children or police
officers.
    Why did Insight neglect to mention this?

                                         Sincerely yours,
                                         David  Solan
                                         Post Office Box 123
                                         Norwalk,  CT  06856
                                         (203) 866-6900


                             ------------

[Published in the GREENWICH TIME:]

                                        August 16, 1989

To The Editor:

      What's going on here?  We are approaching the 50th anniversary
of the September 15, 1939 Russian invasion of Poland.  Half of Poland
at that time fell under communist rule, with considerable help from
Stalin's buddy Hitler.  And with the help of Stalin's other buddy
Roosevelt, the rest of Poland fell a few years later and still suffers
under the weight of that tyranny.
      But we are told this is now all changing.  The anti-communist
Solidarity trade union has many seats in the Polish "Parliament", and
has managed to reject 3 communist Prime Ministers in as many weeks.
The communists themselves have recently instituted a semi-free market
in food in Poland.  This means that as soon as the natural cycle of
food production kicks in, there will be food for all -- that is, if
freedom in the food market is allowed to continue.
      But this semi-free market has opposition.  From "conservative"
communists who want to go back to the old government controls?  No,
from "liberal" Lech Walesa of Solidarity who wants to go back to the
old government controls.  Walesa (supported by George Bush) is so
incensed by this free market and so flush with his new-found power,
that he has risked all the reforms gained so far by calling for the
exclusion of the Communist Party from the governing of Poland.  Such
an exclusion, if implemented, would almost certainly bring on military
moves to thwart it -- perhaps a Russian invasion to insure that the
communists remain in control ... so that they could continue to
institute capitalism there!
       The communists know very well that socialism does not work to
keep a modern civilization operating, and are so desperate to keep up
with America that they are willing to temporarily destroy their own
bureaucracy to attain that goal.  They feel that no one will take
advantage of any freedom they grant to change that temporary expedient
into a permanent condition.  Given "opponents" like Lech Walesa and
George Bush, it looks like they are right.
      We live in a decaying age of confusion and cross purposes.  More
and more, men, decent and otherwise, Polish and American, are
rejecting principles in the name of expediency.  Few have a clear
understanding of where they are going, yet somehow everyone believes
they are going in the right direction.  But without goals and
principles, no direction is "right".  You couldn't even define the
term.
      Actually, we are drifting.  But for man, who is the rational
animal and who therefore needs conceptual purpose to live, such
drifting cannot last for long.  He must move in a clear, chosen, moral
direction, or the immoral direction chosen for him by others will lead
to disaster.  As Leo Rosten once put it: "If you don't know where the
road will lead, it sure as hell will get you there."  Indeed, to hell
is where anyone who drifts ultimately goes, whether he plans it that
way or not.


                                        Sincerely yours,

                                        David  Solan

                             -------------
[Published in the NORWALK HOUR:]
                                                        June 12, 1989
To The Editor:

       The recent bloodbath in Red China is a textbook case of the
evil of Communism in practice, and an object lesson as to why we can
never deal with the communists or have peace with them.  The whole
civilized world is united in its condemnation of this monstrous act of
brutalizing the Chinese populace into submission, including even the
"liberals" (and when the "liberals" understand that a government
action is wrong, everyone understands it).  And yet what does our
president say?  We "need more data."  Since the "data" he is referring
to consists of piles of murdered corpses of innocent students being
set afire in the streets of Peking, I would say we have had more than
enough of this sort of "data".  What we need now is action -- action
based on the principle of American respect for human rights throughout
the globe.  If there were any limits to this administration's moral
cowardice such action would have been forthcoming by now.
       What action can George Bush take?  The possibilities are
virtually limitless given the current near unanimity of opinion of the
American people (and even the Red Chinese people in America!!) against
China.  Some possibilities?  Demanding that Thatcher unilaterally
abrogate England's Hong Kong treaty with China, so that we don't
deliver still another group of innocent Chinese into the maws of this
hell in 1997.  Expel all Chinese military personnel from this country
(right here in Connecticut there are hundreds of these individuals,
and, I believe, more of Sikorsky's military helicopter output goes to
Red China than to America!).  And of course, the obvious: break off
all diplomatic ties with Red China and forbid all private economic
ties to that country until drastic changes occur.  Many, many more
possibilities exist, some of them involving the Republic of China
(Taiwan).
       Will George Bush do any of this?  Don't hold your breath.
This time he doesn't even have the excuse of an uncooperative
congress, yet all he has done so far has essentially been band aid
diplomacy.  And the hideous juggernaut of communist slavery will
continue unabated in this world, actually encouraged by America, the
country that was once "the land of the free and the home of the
brave".  Some day, because of the perfidy of George Bush and others
like him, it will be America's turn to find out about the real nature
of Communism -- not by her people watching their favorite coiffeured
news anchor on their remote controlled TV's in the privacy of their
own homes showing pictures of the horrors while they safely quench a
six pack and eat a nice dinner, but the hard way: by feeling it on
their own hides.

                                       Sincerely yours,

                                       David  Solan
                    --------------------


[Published in the NORWALK HOUR:]
                                     May 19, 1989

To The Editor:

       As an atheist, there are probably many issues where I would
find myself in disagreement with newly instated Bishop Edward Egan of
the Bridgeport diocese.  Nevertheless I am writing this letter to
support him in his recent call for a cutback in government funds for
public education and in his contempt for the conceit held by many
public educationists that government schools represent the only true
force for "fair" and "impartial" education of our children.
       Public education in America has become a wildly bloated
monopoly often transmogrifying the beautiful, fresh minds that come
into it into narrow, dispirited washouts (in the extreme, driving them
to insane "heavy metal" music, drugs, promiscuous sex, crime, and even
suicide).  Catholic Schools in America, I have to admit, do a far
better job of keeping the love of knowledge and diligence of purpose
alive in the children they are entrusted with.  This is not really due
to the religious element in these schools as much as to the
"identification with an ideal, a value", as the Bishop stated in his
recent speech in Bridgeport.
       What right do the authorities have to kidnap children from
their parents (compulsory attendance laws) and send them to
institutions where they are taught what those authorities want them to
be taught?  What right do they have to tax those parents, and everyone
else in society, to pay for that education, an education that those
taxpayers do not choose to voluntarily support?  What right do they
have to destroy the possibility of privately-controlled educational
alternatives (Catholic or any other philosophy) offering a really
decent education to those young minds?
       I hope that more people would come to see that the Bishop has
made many telling points against public education, and would come to
support a system where education could truly be free -- of force
introduced by government control -- and truly be able to live up to
the promise of a better life for our children in the future: a system
that private, competitive, voluntary education would supply for us
all.

                                     Sincerely yours,

                                     David  Solan

                           *     *     *


Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page