In the Perspective section article May 21, "Israel's Land Seizures in Jerusalem Show There Won't Be Any More Pullouts," author Geoffrey Aronson is referred to as director of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
I found it altogether remarkable how misinformed or poorly informed this individual is. He misses by a mile on almost ever issue he covers.
If one begins a discourse with a faulty premise, the body of the work and conclusion will hardly be worth the cost of the paper on which it is written. This seems to be the case here.
Mr. Aronson begins by referring to the territories which Israel occupied in June of 1967. He leaves out any reference that these areas, when under the control of neighboring Arab nations, were twice used as the launching pad for attacks by five Arab nations that were every bit as vicious and ill-conceived as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
He writes glowingly about the "historic agreement" between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat and immediately shifts gears by blaming Israel for its failure to honor in what he terms the Jewish state's commitment in light of its "ideology of conquest."
He dismisses Israel's repeated need for security, calling this totally rational and justifiable demand an obsession rather than the necessary element in the peace process we know it to be.
Mr. Aronson completely dismisses the slaughter of innocent Israelis by Arab militants, which Arafat promised to end in that same Oslo agreement, as though it were a matter of little significance.
He ignores the random Arab slaughter of Jews during the British mandate governing the area from 1920 to 1948, the continued killing while the West Bank and Gaza strip were under the control of Jordan and Egypt after the departure of the British and the marked increase in killings following the present Israeli government's signing the Oslo agreement with Arafat designed to stop the killings.
In reviewing this horribly myopic report on that situation in the Middle East, one must wonder why it is that we give such great regard and attention to those with euphonic titles who claim to speak for impressive-sounding groups most of us have never hard of (that seem to be cropping up in our midst every day).
And why is it that, armed with these questioned credentials, these spokespersons and groups are the ones who generate the most space in print at times when we cry out for truth and honesty, not credentialed fallacies?
I want to respond to the June 6 article, "Results are not in on emerging phytonutrients," by Colleen Pierre, specifically her comments about Interior Design Nutritionals dietary supplements.
The medical profession has neglected a vast amount of nutritional research of the past four years that was paid for by American tax dollars.
Research information on anti-oxidants and phytonutrients has increased from 190 to 22,000 articles. Based on these studies, the editorial board of the University of California at Berkeley Wellness Letter made a 180-degree turn and, in 1994, stated that "we must continue taking our anti-oxidants" for optimum health.
One can only get full anti-oxidant protection from free radicals with supplements.
Food sources have gradually deteriorated in nutritional value over recent years. Eating a well-balanced diet remains the ideal standard, but which of us can do it within the time constraints that we all have and with the volume of food required? Probably less than 10 percent of the population.
The recommended daily allowances are being upgraded because they were originally designed in World War II for the prevention of deficiency diseases such as scurvy, beriberi and rickets.
What the American public needs now are optimum health recommendations. In a democratic society we have the right to hear all sides and make an informed decision.
Leading physicians from such prestigious schools as Berkeley, Tufts, the University of Kentucky, Harvard and Duke currently take anti-oxidants . . .
There are also many local notable and excellent physicians in every specialty, including the family doctor of the year, who offer their patients, among other supplements, those of IDN, which are some of the finest products on the market. They have impacted favorably on these physicians' health as well as the health of their families and patients.
IDN sports products have enabled many athletes, including those who should have reached their prime years ago, to capture gold medals in the last Olympics and to compete again in the future.
Fortunately, some of us have taken the time to read the latest research and apply it clinically rather than blindly follow the old ways.
Using specific nutrient recommendations, we can even correct that most common form of malnutrition, obesity.
The medical profession is waking up to nutrition as a cornerstone of disease prevention and optimization of health and wellness. The old guard of the nutritional profession must get up to date as well.
Lee E. Gresser, M.D.
A Direct Threat
The "dirty water bill," HR 961, recently passed in the House, is a direct threat to the gains realized through the Clean Water and the Safe Drinking Water Acts.
I commend Rep. Robert Ehrlich for voting to maintain clean water standards by his "no" to HR 961. I hope my senators will follow his example.
Maybe someday we'll be able to eat sushi again.
Given my disdain for our city's only serious daily paper, I was nevertheless most impressed to read The Sun's series of articles on Battalion 316 in Honduras.
It gives the reader a chilling glimpse of what havoc United States foreign policy has wreaked on the people of the world.
Honduras is not alone in these horror stories. Greece, Vietnam, El Salvador, East Timor, Nicaragua and other countries with proud people and vibrant cultures, dreams and ideals about creating a better future have been squashed by the strong hand of U.S. intervention.
As for who is to blame in all of this, I would quote political thinker Dwight MacDonald, who says, "Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster."
Once again I must mention how impressed I was with the investigative work of Ginger Thompson and Gary Cohn.
The article on Honduras sends a clear message that the noble cause of freedom can still be threatened by the forces of hatred and oppression. It is even possible that such a threat to freedom can originate in a freedom loving country like America.
There is more than a grain of truth in Frederick Hayward's Opinion * Commentary analogy (June 12) between children/child support and cars/car payments, but only to the extent that the parent wants the child.
I have no doubt that 90 percent of parents who have joint custody pay child support regularly. It would be surprising if parents who love their children and who want to take care of them did anything else.
The problem is not with loving parents. It's with parents who abandon their children.
I wonder how many car owners who choose to abandon their cars continue to keep up their payments.
If you no longer want your car, you can sell it to get out from under your financial obligations to those who trusted you.
The real question is what to do when people who no longer want their children abandon them.
College Park and Economic Development
The Sun's May 28 article on the proposed UMBC research park contained inaccurate and misleading information that demands correction. The article noted tangentially that "...the University of Maryland at College Park has experienced the sting of failure with its park at U.S. 50 and U.S. 301."
In fact, that park is not directly affiliated with College Park and this university had no role in its creation.
The facility, located in Bowie, is a project of the University of Maryland Foundation and was conceived in 1980 by the university central administration in Adelphi. It was intended to support all campuses of the then-University of Maryland, including UMBC, UMAB and College Park.
The Bowie site was deliberately chosen so as not to associate the park with any particular campus.
As the state's largest research university, the University of Maryland College Park has a distinguished record in economic development.
In a recent report on high-technology business incubators, the Department of Economic and Employment Development (DEED) cited the College Park incubator as having generated the largest number of employers or jobs of any university in the state, public or private.
The university's Engineering Research Center is a national model of a cost-effective program that matches faculty at almost all of the state's universities with industry's needs for expertise.
In a recent national ranking, the university's Office of Technology Liaison was listed among the top 20 centers in the country, and was ranked eighth in new technology licensing agreements.
And the day The Sun's Maryland section was noting the university's "failure," its business section carried a story on a $2 million private gift to College Park's Dingman Center for Entrepreneurship, which supports business interests in the state.
Finally, your reporter failed to mention a recent positive development at the Bowie research park that grows out of the university's national stature in computing research.
As a tenant in the park, the University of Maryland College Park has embarked on a joint project with the Census Bureau to place a $20 million high-speed computing center in Bowie.
The project will ultimately benefit all University of Maryland System institutions through high-speed computer linkages to this state-of-the-art facility.
Our role in supporting and expanding economic development throughout the state is important to us. At College Park we are proud of our accomplishment in this area and welcome the opportunity to correct any misperceptions of the success of those efforts.
The writer is vice president for academic affairs and provost at the University of Maryland College Park.