Correspondence

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Feb 21, 2000

Norman Rockwell Truly Was a Great American Artist

Norman Rockwell one day will receive his due ... albeit much too late to do any good ["Rockwell Revisited," Feb. 7]. Rockwell idolized (yet disagreed with) his predecessor, J.C. Leyendecker, who also adorned the covers of magazines in the early 20th century.

Leyendecker, in fact, painted more magazine covers than Rockwell ever would. Rockwell's main criticism of Leyendecker was that he could not paint women with compassion.

Nonetheless, both Leyendecker and Rockwell remain the enduring artists who portrayed the 20th century.

Andy Warhol could paint Campbell's Soup cans and be called a genius, but Leyendecker and Rockwell, who painted Americans in every facet of life, are called "sappy" and were not deemed worthy of serious attention. This is beyond me.

Look at the originals. The innocence of a bygone era now may seem naive or trite, but it wasn't then. Their paintings pulled us through two world wars and reminded us of the things that were important in life.

Though the cynics may try to define what is "Art," let them not detract from the enormous contribution that Norman Rockwell made and the generations of artists he inspired.

Don Garlock Jr. Forest, Va.

Will the Next President Help Rescue American Kids?

Thank you so much for sharing the story of Dria Davis ["A Great Escape!" Feb. 14]. She is an amazing young lady who will go far in life. She has shown courage in the face of adversity and should stand proud.

Sad to say our own government considered her to be expendable. Please continue to bring us stories such as this and help make the U.S. government see the error of its ways. Maybe one day soon We can get all our children who have been taken overseas against their will back home safe and sound.

To all presidential candidates: Our eyes are upon you. Will you show you care about the future of our youth, our people and our country?

Jeanne Phillips via the Internet

ABM Treaty Is Obsolete and Should Be Abrogated

Ivan Eland writes that "the Russians believe that any smaller U.S. defense against rogue states could be a stepping stone to a larger defense that would threaten Russia," the butcher of Chechnya, and that we should work "with the Russians to amend the ABM [antiballistic missile] treaty rather than simply abrogate it outright" [Symposium, Jan. 24]. Russia is threatened only if bulletproof vests threaten criminals.

The ABM treaty signed with the Soviet Union died with the Soviet Union. To claim that a treaty signed with the former Soviet Union is still in force with its successor, Russia, is like saying that Italy is bound by any agreement made by the Roman Empire. Why should we be hostage to nuclear blackmail by rogue states through blind fealty to a treaty signed with a nation that no longer exists?

Iran has test-fired a missile capable of reaching Tel Aviv and could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching targets in an arc extending from Philadelphia to St. Paul, Minn. North Korea recently fired a three-stage missile. North Korea now is capable of hitting the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Alaska, endangering a critical, multibillion-dollar U.S. infrastructure, and is developing missiles that could hit the continental United States.

We no longer live in a bipolar world of essentially two nuclear powers. Why should we need the permission of Russia to defend Alaska against North Korea or Los Angeles against China?

Daniel John Sobieski Chicago