Ezell-Harding glad to be recognized
TO THE EDITOR:
Thank you so much for the recognition Ezell-Harding Christian School (EHCS) receives in The City Paper. I am the director of development here at EHCS, and I hear so many good things about your paper. The students bring me articles and even a paper if they have an extra.
I would like to subscribe to receive the paper here at our school location, and I will e-mail that department. However, I wanted to e-mail you to say thank you for all the good articles concerning Ezell-Harding Christian School. Please contact me if I can be of any assistance.
Thank you, and may God always bless your good efforts.
U.S. glorification as liberator unreal
TO THE EDITOR:
The current glorification of the United States as the great liberator doesn't match reality. We've had a pattern of supporting repressive regimes and interfering with self-determination since World War II. Examples include overthrowing a democratically elected leader in Iran, supporting Cambodian and Vietnamese dictators, opposing Nicaraguans' overthrow of their violent oppressor, and enabling Saddam Hussein.
The United States has now invaded Iraq under the guise of imminent danger and liberation of the Iraqi people. Facts, past and present, do not support this propaganda. To date, no proof has been given to convince most world leaders or people that Saddam posed a serious threat.
The only excuse that is more insulting to our intelligence concerning the recent slaughter is that it was done to liberate Iraqis. Anyone who buys this tripe is a chump. It was our government that empowered Saddam to commit atrocities in the first place. Then we invaded Iraq in 1991, promised to help overthrow Saddam, but pulled out, leaving the Iraqi freedom fighters to face the deadly consequences of our actions.
Our "compassion" for the Iraqis continued after the first Gulf War. We bombed them for a decade, wiping out infrastructure, tormenting children, increasing cancer rates, championing sanctions that resulted in a million deaths, half of them children.
As an American who believes in human rights and seeks to end the root causes of oppression and violence, it is my duty to speak out against jingoist pundits, armchair patriots and those in my government that glorify the recent U.S. invasion. Were we the morally superior people that some like to believe, the world would indeed be a safer place because we would never help to create the Saddams of the world in the first place.
Liberals want free speech for liberals
TO THE EDITOR:
The new liberal position is that the First Amendment only protects good speech, i.e. speech that liberals happen to applaud.
All too often people say and do the most horrible things in the name of peace, then hide behind what they believe is the First Amendment to insist that they have the right to act however they like, while their critics do not have the right to object or to punish them. It seems like the leftists believe that anger-filled free speech is their own little entitled province, as if dissent and valid criticism come only from the left. Therefore, when it comes from the right, it's evil.
Their underlying notion is: Free Speech equals consequence-free speech. Like political diplomatic immunity, free speech is a shield from behind which any destructive loudmouth can use his anger as a weapon against good Americans with absolutely no fear of reprisal. Any objection is an attack on the basic human right of free speech, an assault which, in return, has to be viciously attacked and destroyed. Traditional American values have to be mocked and deconstructed into hate crimes.
In fact, there is a huge distinction to be made between the speaking of words and the content or intent of those words. We each certainly have the right to speak words freely, but we have no implicit immunity from the consequences that arise from the content of those words.
But in the end, free speech is not consequence-free speech at all. Only the right to speak the words is protected