even feel rage, especially in the sinkholenthat is our culture and economy. Howncome we don’t go on a mugging, looting,nburning, killing spree? And why isndoing so considered an “uprising”nagainst “poverty, injustice, and deprivation”?nWhen there is looting in NewnYork when the lights go out, as there alwaysnis, is this a protest against Con Edi- .nson?nLiberals like Jack Kemp tell us we cannotn”ignore the root causes.” But thesencannot include poverty, otherwise Appalachianwould be a high-crime, riotpronenarea. The real root causes are thenabsence of families and of elementarynsocial discipline, both of which welfarenpolicies have encouraged. Now beastsnrule, instead of fathers and mothers.nKemp calls for “empowerment,” butnthat’s only enwelfarement. To him, then$2.5 trillion taxed from the middle classnfor underclass programs is not enough.nThe public-policy views of thieves andnkillers, and those who defend them,nshould have no standing in a civilizednsociety. We might as well get recipesnfrom Jeffrey Dahmer.n—Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.nUsA TODAY is the ACT-UP of thennewspaper industry. Last April 8 the papernouted Arthur Ashe, forcing him tonreveal the fact that a 1983 blood transfusionnleft him HIV positive. USA Todaynalso recently outed former televisionnnewscaster Linda Ellerbee, bullying herninto a public discussion of her doublenmastectomy. As Ellerbee revealed duringna Prime Time Live interview, a reporterncalled her assistant and asked,n”Well, is it true she had to have both hernt-ts cut off?”nSome journalists affect concern overnthe ethical state of their profession. CarlnBernstein said last year that he knewnjournalistic standards had deterioratednwhen he heard Diane Sawyer ask MarianMaples, “Was it the best sex you evernhad?” But was it the ncwsworthiness ofnthe guest or merely Sawyer’s questionnthat bothered Bernstein, the reporternwho built his career on the revelationsnof Deep Throat?nFew editors show even Bernstein’snconcern. At the annual meeting of thenAmerican Society of Newspaper Editorsnheld a week after the Ashe story broke,nonly one editor (from the PhiladelphianInquirer) declared he would not havenpublished the story without Ashe’s per­nmission. The clear consensus was that,nthough Ashe had retired from professionalntennis 13 years ago, he remained an”public figure” and therefore “fairngame.” Ironically, it was Ashe’s rolentwenty years ago as a barrier-breakingnblack athlete that negated his right tonprivacy. A sportswriter in the ChicagonTribune even went so far as to claim thenmoral high ground for the press: “As unfairnas it is to Ashe, the common goodnwill be better served for knowing nown[about his affliction] than later.”nMr. Ashe saw things in a differentnlight. “I didn’t commit any crimes,” hensaid at his news conference. “Lm notnrunning for public office. I should benable to reserve the right to keep thingsnlike that private.” The New York Timesnresponded to his leseinajeste by criticizingnhim for aiming “his barbs at thenwrong target. . . .The real villainy lies innthe cruel and benighted public attitudesnthat compelled Mr. Ashe to keep his diseasensecret. . . .” That Ashe may havenwanted to live a dignified and quiet lifenout of the public eye is a possibility thenTimes cannot understand. The “right tonprivacy” may cover women who wish tonkill their babies, but it does not extendnto role models, national heroes, and allndubiously honored as poster children ofnthe cause of the day. hi valuing his ownnneeds and those of his family over andnagainst the dictates of the herd, Ashenemulated Howard Roark instead ofnMagic Johnson and outraged the manynEllsworth Tooheys of our day.nBut the problem with “outing” is notnthat it raises a conflict between the rightnof free speech and the right to privacy; itnis a more fundamental problem of basicndecency and good manners. Both are inndecline, along with other characteristicsnof republican life. The true significancenof the infamous letters of President Trumannreleased last year was not that theynunmasked him as a bigot. After all, fewnleaders in American history, and notneven the Great Emancipator, believednin racial equality. But what the lettersnenabled us to glimpse was a crass andnvulgar haberdasher whom the foundersnof the republic—farmers and merchantsnalike—would not have allowed in thenfront door.nIn better days an editor who ran thenAshe story would have been challengednto a duel by his victim and tarred andnfeathered by his former subscribers. ButnUSA Today has the largest general readershipnof any newspaper in the country.nnnThe American people not only have thengovernment they deserve; we also haventhe newspaper we deserve.n—Theodore PappasnMICHAEL WU wants to become annAmerican citizen. He is 25 years old andnhas lived in San Diego with his Taiwanesenparents since 1980. He speaksnEnglish and Chinese, works packingnnewspapers for recycling, and attendsnschool. He loves baseball and swimmingnand wants to join the U.S. Navy. By allnaccounts he is hardworking and loves thenUnited States. But there’s one littlenproblem: he can’t pass the Immigrationnand Naturalization Service’s citizenshipnexam. He has taken the test six times.nMichael, you see, has Down’s Syndrome.nRepresentative Bill Lowery, Republicannfrom San Diego, introduced H.R.n1917, which stipulates that “for purposesnof section 322(a) of the Immigrationnand Nationality Act, Michael Wu shallnbe considered to be a child under 18nyears of age.” That way, he can be naturalizednwithout taking the test. Thenbill for the relief of Michael Wu, born JiunnKai Wu in the Republic of China, inn1966, is one of those special bills targetednat individuals. According to the SannDiego Union profile of Michael, hundredsnof these bills are introduced, butnonly about 15 pass. Praise be.nBut this is one piece of legislation thatnseems destined to become law. “Henknows what it means to be a citizen ofnthis nation and would truly appreciatenthe honor of joining the rest of his familynas full citizens,” Representative Lowerynsays, and for some reason there’s everynreason to believe that. Moreover,n”Michael is the kind of person who representsnthe best of what this nation isnabout: someone who has obstacles tonovercome but who does his best to succeednand appreciates the opportunitiesngiven to him.” That, no doubt, is truenas well.nRepresentative Lowery’s bill passednthe House by voice vote on Novembern20 and as of last April awaited floor actionnin the Senate. If for no other reason,nMichael Wu is destined to becomena citizen because only an ogre wouldnvote against a bill to make him a citizen.nSure, immigration is a problem,nbut this one case is very special, right?nWell, yes, it is, and I probably couldn’tnvote against giving Michael Wu the lifenin these United States he wants. I’mnJULY 1992/7n