Little Boy, Big Issues Your cover story “Elian’s Ordeal” (NATIONAL AFFAIRS, April 17) was superb. You provided much-needed information about life in Cuba and how the political system is failing to provide a decent living standard for the Cuban people, including the children. Mohamad A. Khalil Morgantown, W.Va.
Oh, come on: Elian is “Castro’s propaganda trophy”? Take a good look at the video of the little boy sitting on a bed, announcing that he doesn’t want to go back to Cuba. The Miami family of this child has taken propaganda to a new level, and the American media have bent over backward to accommodate them. It’s time for everyone, from the media and government to the so-called family in Miami, to back off and let the boy spend time with his dad. That is where he belongs. The Miami Cubans have proved to me that their hate for Fidel Castro is far more important to them than any “love” they may claim to have for Elian. Elian’s father met all the demands of the Miami family when he came to this country. But they kept setting new conditions. Face it: these people never had any intention of giving this child back. As long as he’s here, they will get more than their 15 minutes of fame. Do I smell book deals and endless talk shows ahead? Shirley Schneck Benton Harbor, Mich.
No doubt when he returns to Cuba, Elian will be told what a traitor his mother was for trying to bring him to freedom and how awful those people in Miami were for wanting him to grow up free and full of hope for the future. Don’t worry; the “grotesque spectacle” in Miami is nothing compared with what Uncle Fidel will do to Elian, parading him all over Cuba regurgitating propaganda. Ana Rhodes Miami, Fla.
Thank you for telling the other side of the Elian story–the touching story of a father’s love for his son. The television coverage of this story has seemed biased in favor of Elian’s Miami relatives and the Cuban-American protesters, who portray the U.S. government as the bad guy for trying to reunite Elian with his father. Your article revealed the selfishness of Lazaro and Delfin Gonzalez in keeping Elian because they were afraid of looking “bad in front of the Cuban people in Miami.” Thank you for giving Juan Miguel Gonzalez a voice. Josephine K. McGuire Chicago, Ill.
Keep Elian–return the Miami relatives, neighbors and mayors! A. G. Sander Sarasota, Fla.
Would little Elian really be better off in Miami than in drab Havana? Of course he likes it here right now, with everybody spoiling him rotten. I grew up under very austere conditions in South America, but I wouldn’t want to trade the hardship experiences there for the most luxurious environment. The harsh life in Cuba may well give Elian a more useful start in life than all the visits to Disney World and ice-cream parlors combined. Gert Aron Boalsburg, Pa.
As a citizen of the United States, I am disappointed that we are fighting to such an extent to send Elian back to Cuba. This nation is not an exclusive club for a select few, but rather an open door to all those who are oppressed. Elian’s mother died in an effort to deliver her son to freedom. Now the United States wants to snuff out all the hopes and aspirations of Elian’s life because there must be a reunion of father and son. We must as a country open wide our arms to embrace those who seek freedom. Brad J. Feller Davison, Mich.
Although I am only 13, I have enough sense to know that a child belongs to his parents. And in Elian Gonzalez’s case, his father. What I don’t know is the reason we Americans don’t quite click in to this basic logic. America must be pretty dumb to even think about letting this poor little kid stay with his parasitic relatives (his cousin Marisleysis is getting on my nerves). Therefore, if Americans think that they are so “thoughtful” and better than Cubans are, I recommend that we give Elian back to his dad, and also donate some money for his education and future. Instead of gossiping about this perfectly normal boy who just needs his father, America should take a thorough reality check. One more thing. Quit making him the main subject of NEWSWEEK. How ironic it is that the media carp about Elian’s being “exploited,” and then turn around and put the poor kid’s face on their covers. Justin Huang Cerritos, Calif.
It is deeply troubling to imagine young Elian Gonzalez growing up in a repressive, unsafe country, where masses of people refuse to obey the law; where gun violence, pornography, drug abuse and prostitution are rampant; where millions of citizens lack health care; where homeless citizens beg for money on city streets, and where people live in poverty while others live decadently. I say let’s get Elian out of the United States and back to Cuba as soon as possible! Stacy Taylor El Cerrito, Calif.
I think Elian has won the hearts of all Americans and should never be sent back to Cuba. Claire A. Minear Chula Vista, Calif.
A Gunmaker in the Cross Hairs Matt Bai scored a bull’s-eye with his insightful article on Colt (“Unmaking a Gunmaker,” SOCIETY, April 17). Donald Zilkha (who recently bought the company) and his colleagues have learned the hard way that it is not possible to make a politically correct gun. Guns in general, and handguns in particular, are no more responsible for violent crime than automobiles are for the acts of drunken drivers, yet this logic is lost on gun-hating liberal politicians who won’t be satisfied until all potential victims are disarmed. And kowtowing to the enemies of the Second Amendment only antagonizes a gunmaker’s customer base. Those of us who hold precious our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, like those who hold precious the right to life, know there is no middle ground–you’re either with us or against us. To paraphrase the late Barry Goldwater, zealotry in defense of freedom is no vice. William L. Heubaum Fountain Hills, Ariz.
As a 17-year-old high-school student, I am as concerned as anyone about gun-control regulations. Your article focused on the gunmakers, essentially questioning their motives for manufacturing their product. Their motive is as simple as that of every other company in the business world: money. They are not out to increase murder rates or frighten people, but instead to make a hard-earned dollar. Believe it or not, guns are valuable to some people. As long as one person finds these guns valuable and can use them without harm, then that’s enough justification for the gunmakers. One person pulls that trigger, and responsibility should always fall squarely on the shoulders of the shooter or shooters. The disturbed children who rampaged through Columbine were no doubt influenced by other people and surroundings, but they made the decision to create that havoc. Gunmakers have no malicious intent involved in their manufacturing process. The first place I would look for trouble is in the parenting. Perhaps the parents need to stop using these easy targets as a crutch for where they fail. Derek Schnabel South Beloit, Ill.
To Slum or Not to Slum? It’s so good to know that visitors to Brazil now have the opportunity to see its seedier side! After reading your brief article “Slumming Is Hot in Rio” (FOCUS ON TRAVEL, April 17), I couldn’t help wondering where money goes from these tours. To the shantytowns many tourists feel free to gaze at from their Jeeps before going back to their own homes, far removed from the abject poverty? No, of course not. Why should the shantytown residents be seen as people in need, rather than spectacles whom companies can exploit and tourists can belittle with such comments as “This looks like luxury to me”? Have people truly so little compassion? Joseph P. Wood Tucson, Ariz.
How pathetic it is that people think being poor is a tourist attraction. How dare they! I’m sure these same “tourists” would never deign to visit the slums in their own cities of residence (and, in fact, probably make every effort to avoid them) and would raise the loudest voices against having “tours” of this type conducted in their own backyards, but find it a “hot new attraction” in another country. How selfish is it to spend money to visit a terrible slum like Rocinha (and similar places), instead of using that money to improve the living conditions of its residents? This truly gives new meaning to “seeing how the other half lives.” Rhonda McDaniel Upper Marlboro, Md.
Nix on ‘Chicks’ I enjoyed George Will’s column about a new kind of political leadership that is changing the way things are done in Arizona (“Straight Talk From Arizona,” THE LAST WORD, April 17). However, his use of the expression “chicks in charge” indicates that Will may not believe that females are the equal of males in leadership positions. He seems to be complimentary in the text, but the use of a term that many women regard as derogatory glaringly detracts from the real message he is apparently trying to convey. His use of quotes around the phrase seems to imply that he didn’t coin it, but my impression of the piece was greatly altered nevertheless. Will’s suggestion that George W. Bush would do well to consider Lisa Graham Keegan for high office is an indication that he perceives greatness in her leadership. A better descriptive phrase could have clarified this view. Kay Moreau Sacramento, Calif.
George Will refers to Arizona’s “chicks in charge” administration. He seems to think the term is cute. I think “chicks” is a derogatory word for women. Will uses it to note that women hold a disproportionate number of offices in Arizona’s state government. (Has he ever pointed out a comparable disparity in a state government run entirely by men?) Will’s need to draw attention to the prevalence of female administrators, combined with the offensive term he uses to label them, creates an impression of disdain, even as he praises the work done by one of these women, Lisa Graham Keegan. Elizabeth Wrigley-Field New York, NY
Clarification In a PERISCOPE item about Pulitzer Prizes in our April 24 issue, “The Odds of Tragedy,” a very short caption did not make it clear that the picture it accompanied, the winner in the photography category, was from Denver’s Rocky Mountain News.
Concern Over Contributions In response to our Special Report on the devastating effect of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa (INTERNATIONAL, Jan. 17), many of our readers asked us how they could help. We listed, in our Jan. 24 and Feb. 7 issues, a number of prominent charitable organizations involved In the cause, as well as contact information for those of you who wanted more information. We recently learned that several of our readers who sent donations to UWESO (the Uganda Women’s Effort to Save Orphans) apparently had their checks stolen before they were presented for payment. In at least three instances, an account number and forged signature were used in an effort to wire transfer funds to a third party’s account; in at least one instance, a check was altered to reflect a larger amount. UWESO is taking the situation very seriously and is working with Ugandan authorities who are investigating the situation. For our other readers who sent donations to UWESO: please check with your bank to make sure that your donation made its way to UWESO. If you suspect there is a problem with your donation, you should contact UWESO by e-mail (uweso@imul.com) or by getting in touch with its executive director, Pelucy Ntambirweki (telephone: 011-256-41-532394; fax: 011-256-41-532396). UWESO suggests that future donations be made through wire transfer, rather than by mail.
