Regarding Carolyn Bardos’ Nov. 16 Forum letter and white supremacy:
Who is “white people”?
Do you mean to include under that term the Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants to this country, about whom those of British descent debated whether they could, indeed, be considered members of the purported white race?
Do you mean anyone who is not of Asian, African, Melanesian or Austronesian heritage?
I myself am not a “white people.” I am an American of Jewish ethnicity. I, personally, like good people, and dislike bad people.
And I have no patience for earnest self-flagellation nor for the intellectual laziness of accusing broad categories of people of some taint-by-birth.
We can forgive Olivia LaPierre, who resigned as chair of the Hartford Racial Inequality Commission, for her views. I, too, was once 22, radical, self-righteous and believing I knew everything about everything and especially about injustice.
Then I grew up, traveled, met many more people than I’d known before; saw the universalities of human nature.
Anyone older than a recent college graduate should know better than to treat anyone like a jam jar suitable for labeling based on an assumption of their contents.
Sarah Crysl Akhtar
Lebanon
On Nov. 14, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to discuss the president’s power to order a nuclear first strike. The three witnesses who testified were retired Gen. Robert Kehler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Peter Feaver, a political scientist from Duke University, and Brian McKeon, former undersecretary for policy in the Defense Department. As the hearing progressed, its three main objectives became clear: to restrain an impulsive president who has authority over nuclear armament; to defeat the Lieu-Markey bill, which requires congressional approval as a precondition for a nuclear first strike; and to permanently institutionalize nuclear deterrence based on a realistic threat to use nuclear weapons.
Over and over again, all three witnesses declared that there is no legislative solution to the problem of restraining the president, despite the Constitution’s provisions. Over and over again, the witnesses suggested the main objective of national defense is to preserve our ability to unleash nuclear strikes.
Of those in the room, only Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire mentioned the potential harm to actual human beings, and her comment was brief. As its contradictions became obvious, only Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts objected to the overall argument.
This is extremely dangerous. It raises the odds that sooner or later, nuclear weapons will be used again. There have been too many close calls already.
John Raby
New London