Letters to the Editor
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
Trump’s Towers
It’s unfortunate that experts and some September 11 families view Donald Trump’s Twin Towers suggestion with disdain [“Trump’s Bid To Build Taller Twins Is Panned by 9/11 Families,” Julie Satow, New York, May 19, 2005]. Personally, I’ve found when I engage in conversations about the World Trade Center site, it’s rare that someone doesn’t mention a desire to see the original skyscrapers rebuilt.
Not only do I share Mr. Trump’s assertion that the Freedom Tower conveys the wrong message, I would go a step further with a reminder that the Towers are arguably the single most studied buildings in the world with regard to safety. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to rebuild them with all that knowledge that has been gleaned from such research.
TODD BAKER
Dix Hills, N.Y.
Donald Trump’s suggestion that we rebuild the Twin Towers rising one story taller than the original [“Trump: ‘If Freedom Tower Is Built, the Terrorists Win,’ ” Julie Satow, Page 1, April 18, 2005], is not only a fine idea. It is really the only idea, not just for New York and America, but also for the entire free world. “The Donald” has a lot more heart and brains than I ever imagined – even after his hit TV show “The Apprentice.”
FREDA B. LANGBERT
Manhattan
‘Killer Bees’
Few things were more aggravating last week than watching the Senate’s “Killer Bees,” Senators Biden and Boxer, wax incessantly about John Bolton’s lack of qualifications for the role of U.N. ambassador [“Battle Over Bolton Moves to the Floor of the Senate,” Eli Lake, Page 1, May 13, 2005].
Their pompous grandstanding constituted one giant exercise of projection; what they see in Mr. Bolton is more properly descriptive of themselves, including conceit, intolerable arrogance, a bullying nature, and a resistance to recognizing and accepting the dangerous realities around them. Following their very own criteria, then, neither Mr. Biden nor Ms. Boxer is qualified for their own positions.
Kettle and pot notwithstanding, that opinion is irrelevant. What we commonly mean by the phrase “(s)he is not qualified” is that the subject is not likely to perform in a manner that the opinion holder prefers. Nonetheless, the true and actual criteria for the use of the word “qualified” when pertaining to elected positions in our system, whether senator or U.N. ambassador, is that (in addition to citizenship and age requirements, etc.), the nominee actually obtains the requisite vote of the relevant constituency – national, state, congressional, or committee.
Our system dictates that, despite individual opinions, it is the vote that actually qualifies the nominee – nothing more, nothing less. It is the consensus opinion, not the individual opinion, that matters. Both Ms. Boxer and Mr. Biden obtained such votes for themselves and, thus, demonstrated their qualification for their respective roles.
Isn’t this precisely the point? By announcing she will put a hold on the full Senate vote or subsequently filibuster, Ms. Boxer is interfering with our system’s true method for determining whether, in fact, John Bolton is qualified. It is particularly puzzling in light of Ms. Boxer’s recent efforts to help introduce the “Count Every Vote Act of 2005,” which attempts to aggressively liberalize our national voting procedures – including allowing ex-felons off parole to vote and requiring states to notify them that they have this right.
She seems to be enamored with the voting process when it can benefit those with whom she agrees. When it comes to determining Mr. Bolton’s fate, however, she suddenly loses her affection. Ms. Boxer should acquire a mirror, stop whining, and “Get Out The Vote” so we can actually determine whether Mr. Bolton qualifies. Then, if we are fortunate, we will have an ambassador who will make a critical and important difference in the world.
BILL SIEGEL
Manhattan
‘Blundering on China’
The New York Sun editorial advising that America should get off China’s back regarding the phony charge of currency manipulation is so perceptive as to be almost unique among American print media [“Blundering on China,” May 18, 2005]. Not the least significant aspect of the views expressed is their reflection of your understanding and appreciation of classical (supply-side) economic theory.
The value of the currency unit must not change, either by gaining or losing value. Otherwise, the entire economy is burdened with adjusting prices in order to avoid dire consequences.
Your recognition of China’s pegging to the dollar as a rational creation of a larger currency area beneficial to both parties, and the destructive effects of protectionism in trade relations, also honors the classical economic model. Thank you for this important contribution to public discourse.
WAYNE JETT
Pasadena, Calif.
Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.
