It will be a travesty of justice and a horrendous precedent if Guy Hunt is pardoned. There is little doubt about his guilt and corruption, not just in stealing money from the inaugural account for which he was indicted, tried and convicted.
If you will look back in your own Ted Bryant's files from the 1986 election campaign, and to David Burnham's book ``Above the Law'' on the Justice Department, you will find the story of how Hunt was forced to resign from federal service in the Agriculture Department for using his office for political gain.
If not for the partisan nature of the U.S. attorney's office at that time, staffed by Ronald Reagan appointees, Hunt would have been indicted and convicted in that case and would never have been governor of Alabama in the first place. He did nothing positive for Alabama while in office and, in fact, reinforced the image of Alabama around the nation as a state of ignorant hicks. Fob James continues in this tradition.
The people of Alabama should demand that Hunt's conviction stand and try electing honorable, effective leaders for a change.
Glynn R. Wilson
1526 Laurel Ave
Knoxville, Tenn.
The swift confirmation of Alexis Herman as secretary of labor without adequate scrutiny of her background shows how much our nation has changed. For today's generation, the most important thing is that Herman is another ``first,'' a black female appointed to an important Cabinet post, and this kind of symbolism overshadows any conflicts of interest or other improprieties on her part.
But prior generations expected people to behave ethically, and even the appearence of impropriety was unacceptable. In 1958 the indignation of the public and the news media forced the resignation of a member of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Cabinet simply because he accepted a vicuna coat from an industrialist. And now, 40 years later, what a contrast we have with the reaction to Ms. Herman's behavior.
As an official of the Labor Department in the 1970s, Ms. Herman was involved in the questionable disbursement of millions of dollars inhastily approved job training grants, an action that prompted an investigation. A former employer of Ms. Herman received a sizable grant and one of the largest grants went to a program being run by her friend Jesse Jackson.
After leaving the Labor Department, Ms. Herman became part of the growing cottage industry of ``diversity consultants'' who advised companies on the affirmative action guidelines she helped develop. Her business was assisted by her friend Jackson, who would question a company's employment practices and hint at boycotts and protests. Once the employers were sufficiently alarmed, Jackson would suggest that they retain Ms. Herman's services. This ploy worked well and Ms. Herman received substantial fees for ``consulting.''
On one government contract, Ms. Herman received $500,000 and on another almost $600,000. There was practically no work done by Ms. Herman. She was simply on record as the company's diversity consultant. And, because these were government contracts, her fees were essentially financed by tax dollars.
As a member of Clinton's Commerce Department, Ms. Herman arranged several government-sponsored trips to Mexico that included Caryliss Weaver, vice president of the company that purchased Ms. Herman's consulting business and also contributed $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
The most recent scandal involving Ms. Herman was the organization of White House meetings between bankers and the president for the purpose of illegal fund raising. After these meetings, the bankers and their political action committees gave $558,000 to Democratic candidates. Ms. Herman maintains and expects us to believe that one of her assistants arranged these meetings for the highest office in the nation without even advising her.
Comments by former associateswho worked with Ms. Herman on the Democratic National Committeemake her sound like an Earl Hilliard clone. Her exorbitant and questionable expense reports, her use of chauffeured limousines and her demand for first-class treatment regardless of cost caused one to remark that ``'Alexis used that money to live like the queen of Egypt.''
When Sen. Richard Shelby introduced Ms. Herman to the Senate, he said with a straight face, ``She earned her way the hard way, by hard work.'' But the hardest work Ms. Herman did was learn how to milk the system. And, if you consider only the incidents cited above, you should agree with former Herman associates that she is ``unfit to lead an agency with 16,000 employees and a $35 billion budget.''
C. Gail Jarvis
1638-H 28th Court South
Birmingham parents should worry more about the quality of education their children are receiving rather than where they go to school. As the article, ``Parents lobby for Fairview,'' by Michelle Chapman said, the school structure is 88 years old. That is too old for a child to learn well.
It should matter some where the school is located. It should matter more what kind of learning environment the students have. Students should not have to worry about restrooms working or peeling paint falling on their heads. Their main concern should be learning the basics.
Brian Richey
4911 Twin Pine Circle
Although I am not a homosexual, I think that people who are should be able to express their sexuality freely without feeling prejudice from the public. I think it is wrong that people who do ``come out'' risk losing their careers, family members and friends.
Everybody is a different hair color and build and has different facial features. But when someone says that they are gay, ``people'' judge them automatically. I do believe that we have come a long way from the way it used to be when someone announced that they were a homosexual, but I also believe we have a long way to go to get to where we should be.
Janna Lambert
713 Rock Leaf Lane
I am writing about the April 30 article, ``Coming out comes hard.'' I have nothing against gays or lesbians, even though I do not believe in their beliefs. They are people just like you and me, and they have the same rights as we do. I do not think that people should give them such a hard time.
Personally, I do not approve of gay or lesbian beliefs, but what people do is their own business. If people would not give them such a hard time, maybe ``coming out'' wouldn't be so hard on them.
In the world today, if you are a homosexual, you are looked at in a different way than a heterosexual is looked at. I think that is wrong. Like I said, what they do is their business and I respect that. So, next time you hear about someone you know coming out about being a homosexual, don't give them a hard time. They are people, too.
Amanda Weitman
561 Oakline Drive
I am writing in regard to the recent episode of ``Ellen'' and the local network affiliate's choice not to air the episode. I heard a caller on a radio talk show mention an interesting perspective on the freedom of speech argument. In addition to having the right to freedom of speech (which has also come to include non-verbal expression) in this country, the citizens of this country have the right to withhold their freedom of speech. This is heard every time an officer of the law makes an arrest: ``You have the right to remain silent. ...''
The people who made the decision to not show the episode of ``Ellen'' simply exercised their rights as individuals, as citizens of this country and as owners and operators of their company and, in the process, no other individual's rights were violated.
But some may ask, ``What about Ellen's right to proclaim her `alternate' lifestyle?'' I understand the episode was broadcast in a public arena and Ellen also made a national appearance on ``Oprah'' (which was rerun later that night on a separate network). I hope all who read this realize that your right to freedom of speech does not override the rights of those around you. As a neo-philosopher put it, ``My rights end where your nose begins.''
Danny Colpo
1812 Fourth Ave. South, No. 209