In reference to Jamie Blount's letter in The Sun (July 14): Americans still cling to an antiquated system of measurement that even the British have thrown away because we can better visualize distances graduated in miles than in kilometers and can more easily comprehend a weather report in Fahrenheit than in Celsius.
And have you ever tried a new recipe written in metric? Give me a break.
I personally prefer to rely on pounds and feet and let the rest of the world be out of step.
Carol Chesney Meyers
I was very surprised by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's reaction to the incident (The Sun, July 14) in which four Palestine Liberation Organization officials, including two believed to have planned the 1974 PLO attack on a high school in Maalot in which 21 Israeli teen-agers were killed, entered Gaza in the entourage of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat without Israeli approval.
Mr. Rabin was described as "angered and outraged" by the incident, and ordered the border crossings closed until the four men were sent back to Egypt.
Mr. Rabin's display of anger was clearly hypocritical and nothing more than a public relations ploy designed to parry the criticism of those who are opposed to his disastrous policy of blatantly appeasing and capitulating to the PLO and who correctly viewed the incident as additional evidence that the PLO autonomous area could evolve into a PLO terrorist state.
Indeed, it is Mr. Rabin himself who has shaken the hand of Yasser Arafat, the commander of the murderers of the Maalot children and the man responsible for the killing of more Jews than anyone since Adolf Hitler.
Mr. Rabin's "peace" policy is predicated on his trust in Mr. Arafat, a man who has proven to have an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and who has proven to be completely untrustworthy.
The obvious inconsistency of Mr. Rabin, who had adopted the policy of "let bygones be bygones" even when it involves murderers, was also reflected in a statement on this incident by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, an adviser to Yasser Arafat who claimed that there was no basis for Mr. Rabin's reaction.
In support of his opinion, Dr. Tibi noted that "the person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian conflict is Yasser Arafat, and this man shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin."
Harry L. Rashbaum
Mike Littwin whines that O. J. Simpson's lawyer makes more than he does ("Don't do the crime if you can't net enough to pay the lawyers," July 15).
This carping is no different from the day laborer who complains that Mr. Littwin makes more than he does.
Just as the day laborer may not be able to see the full complexity and scarcity value of what Mr. Littwin does, Mr. Littwin and Mr. Weston, whom he quotes, may not be able to see the complexity and the scarcity value of what Robert Shapiro does.
But the market knows. Mr. Simpson chose to hire Mr. Shapiro because of his record and his willingness to drop business and family plans in order to defend O. J. Simpson.
If a lower-priced lawyer had these attributes, I'm sure O. J. Simpson would have hired one.
I know plumbers who charge only $50 an hour, because they don't pay taxes; I know others who charge $85 an hour and pay their taxes.
I know professors and consultants who charge $400 an hour and need to turn away clients. Others charge $50 per hour and have no clients.
Second-guessing the market is irresponsible, because it feeds class resentment by masking important facts.
One fact unmentioned here is that if Mr. Shapiro indeed manages to collect his fee, business costs and taxes probably will eat up over $400 per hour, since in California combined federal, state and Medicare tax rates are commonly in the 50 percent to 60 percent bracket.
Joel N. Morse
Why must we, the public, be plagued with this continual drivel about O. J. Simpson?
The alleged crime is horrible, but why must we have it thrown in our faces 24 hours a day by all the media?
I respected the man as a collegiate and professional athlete, but this is too much.
If it were me or John Doe, the story would be buried on page four, and the final outcome buried on page 14 of the newspaper.
David N. Hawkins Sr.
Men and Women
On what premise does Lindsay J. Thompson justify writing, "It is time for us as a society to liberate men from the fragile sense of honor that fears female emancipation as an affront to their honor because it undermines their authority in the household," in her letter, "Male Dominance Causes Domestic Violence" (July 10)?
I do believe that equal rights between the "differences" does not reasonably insult females in their ability to overcome ignorance and injustice in our society.
The power and strength of the human mind is neither male nor female. Both sexes have offered things of greatness that have contributed to the betterment of this country.
They include things stretching from Albert Einstein's theories of relativity to Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism.
Insulting the male population of this society in such a way exemplifies the fact that the essence of corruption is ignorance.
Any man or woman who believes that a "normal" marriage is based on masculine power is incorrect in his/her thinking.
Men and women should stand side by side.
Her letter screams at women to stand in front of men. If that should ever happen, then what has been accomplished other than a reversal of a stereotypical role?
It is ultra ignorance for a human to think that love entitles control. Love adds to the betterment of the self, not to the betterment of corruption.
It is time for us as a society to strive for knowledge of equality. It is not time for us to "liberate men.'
Michael L. Hyman
Common Cold War
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union has ended. But the United States has intensified its Cold War with North Korea.
The result is that North Korea believes the U.S. wants inspection of its military sites for espionage purposes . . . Has the United States ever permitted other countries or the United Nations to inspect our government's military sites involving nuclear weapons?
Any sincere attempt to negotiate a lasting solution to any dispute involves understanding the fears and hopes of the other party -- in this case, North Korea.
The U.S. has no diplomatic or press corps representatives in North Korea. Communications come through the American military commander in South Korea to the Pentagon or some other government agency. In other words, information is filtered, much as was the case in the military control of news during the Persian Gulf war.
The Korean War ended with a cease-fire in 1953. No U.S. administration has been willing to turn the armistice into a peace treaty, although U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali now supports such a treaty.
For many years, exercises called "Team Spirit" have simulated bombing and invasion of North Korea.
The Defense Monitor, published by the Center for DefenseInformation headed by retired U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers, said in January 1994: "The best option is to offer to withdraw U.S. military forces from South Korea in exchange for North Korean abandonment of any nuclear weapons development and agreement to permit unimpeded international inspection to verify the agreement . . .
"U.S. forces in Korea, seen by the North as a very dangerous threat, actually have stimulated it to develop nuclear weapons rather than discouraged it."
Why does the U.S. continue this Cold War activity with North Korea? In 1991, Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared, "I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim II Sung."
Why are these "villains" necessary? "The Pentagon's recent bottom-up review concluded that the U.S. must maintain very large military forces able to fight and win two major regional conflicts at the same time: against Iraq and North Korea.
"These redundant forces will cost $276 billion in fiscal year 1994 and $1.3 trillion during the next five years." (Center for Defense Information, January 1994).
It's costing us plenty, financially and morally, to maintain this common "cold."