American men must be models of self restraint

American men must be models of self restraint
EDITOR:
I found the recent article in The Vindicator about the Islamic head veils in Cairo confusing. Apparently American males have higher moral values and more restraint and control of themselves than Islamic men. It has never been my experience in the United States to be leered at by men with impure thoughts because I was not covered by a tent of cloth. On the contrary I have been treated with respect by American males whether I was wearing shorts, long pants, a skirt, or a full length coat.
I also find it strange that the women interviewed in the article embraced western attire, fast food, and American education but only with each other. This appears to be a double standard to me and may set a dangerous precedent. I am wondering how these women would feel if their husbands, fathers, brothers, or male leaders demanded that they give up their education, their western attire, and their fast food altogether. Would that scenario make them feel pious or would they perhaps feel their freedom of choice had been taken away from them?
I also find it ironic that people of the Islamic faith are free to follow their traditions as they please in America but they do not have a reciprocal agreement with us. I have been told by servicemen, travel agents, and government officials that if I travel in the Middle East I will need to wear long skirts and head veils or I will be harassed, arrested, or possibly stoned. I advise these ladies to be careful what they wish for. What they perceive as being pious today may cause them irreparable heartache in the future.
KATHY AARON
Boardman
Older generations will pay for babies that weren't born
EDITOR:
Economists in both the public and private sectors are warning of an impending shortfall in funds available for providing financial support to our Social Security and Medicare systems. With the rise in average life expectancy (age 47 in 1900 and age 77 in 1999) which surpasses that which was prevalent in August of 1935 when FDR signed the Social Security Act into law, retired persons are now drawing on their SS benefits for an average of 15 to 20 years longer than anyone expected in 1935.
Furthermore, the baby boomers, those citizens born between 1946 and 1964, will have reached the age (65) when they can begin to draw down on the available SS dollars between 2001 (as some already have) and 2029. Comparing the decrease in employed citizens who can fund the system with payroll taxes, with that increase in those ready to receive payouts and then noting the deficiency in numbers of those who replenish the draw downs, one can easily predict a bankrupt Social Security System before too long; some say by as early as 2015.
Since January of 1973 when the Supreme Court made abortion on demand a legal act in this country we have seen the virtual slaughter of 1.5 million unborn babies per year. Even if a person does not happen to think that such an immoral act is despicable, at least someone should realize, from a purely pragmatic point of view, that over the past 34 years we have seen the potential work force decreased by an amazing 51 million people; that's one sixth of our population. Whether or not one happens to agree on the immorality of abortion on demand, everyone should see that it has been an extremely, fiscally unsound practice.
Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of Great Britain in 1874, warned that "He who has forgotten the errors of the past, is doomed to repeat them." If we are to save 1.5 million potential wage earners from a death sentence every year, we should begin now, having learned from our past. The one aborted today could be supplying SS funds to the baby boomer drawing them out in 2025.
CHARLES H. McGOWEN, M.D.
Howland