Pin It

Letters to the Editor 

no big deal

In response to the article on Congressman Cooksey ("Congressman Diaperhead," Sept. 25), I would like to comment with the following. Cooksey's remarks would probably have not been taken seriously by the majority of intelligent people in the United States. However, because he is considering a run for the U.S. Senate against this publication's favorite liberal, you attempt to make a big deal about it. I don't think we should be concerned about so-called racial profiling. We should concern ourselves with the security of our country. If it means taking a closer look at people of Middle Eastern descent, so be it.

I was overseas on the day of the attacks. I returned to our great country four days after. I noticed no such tighter security in Miami, Fla. I was spoken to in Spanish by the security officer when I arrived. I am a Cajun. Was I profiled? Did they suspect me of being a South American drug lord? So what? This neither offended nor angered me. I know who I am, and now the security officer in Miami knows, too. Stop using this national tragedy to gain votes for Ms. Landrieu. She is having her troubles because we Louisianians only hear her when her master Marc Morial jerks her chain.

God bless America!

Harold Lirette

a just use of force

The letter warning that "if we attack them with the same fervor, how are we any different?" (Letters, Sept. 25) and the article about the peace movement in New Orleans ("The Peacemongers," Sept. 25) were both based on a dangerous moral equivalency. When the state apprehends a criminal, tries him and incarcerates him for a rape he committed, it is the just use of force. When a person kidnaps a stranger and imprisons him, it is an unjust use of force. To equate these two acts of force is monstrous. To equate a United States and Israeli response to terrorist acts with terrorism would likewise be monstrous.

Why do some on the American left oppose a military response to terrorism? The West recognizes the legal equality of women, guarantees the right to dissent politically and religiously, and protects the right of gays. There is almost total repression of women and gays by states that sponsor terrorism, and political and religious dissent frequently results in death. Yet there are those who refuse to distinguish between force used to protect individual freedom and force used to kill thousands of free people. To make such a distinction, one would have to concede that the West with its secular governments and individualistic societies has a better, more humane system than that of the terrorist states. This is not something the American left will admit.

We should not equate murderers with those who resist murder. Common sense demands that we attack terrorist states with "moral fervor and certainty."

Randy Boudreaux

they have rights, too

I read your article regarding the comments of Walton and Johnson, two local radio personalities ("Not Amused," Sept. 18).

Those same First Amendment rights that allow them to urge the deportation of non-U.S. citizens, also allow you to publish the Tom Tomorrow comic strip, which constantly belittles our president. I don't question the First Amendment. I question your priorities ... and your politics.

Allen Sanders

antietam no comparison

In your "Mourning in America" edition, Mr. Dan Kennedy compared the recent terrorist bombings to the death toll at the battle of Antietam ("The End of Decadence," Sept. 18). Kennedy cited Jeff Greenfield of CNN for the proposition that the 22,000 Americans who died at Antietam "constituted the worst single day death toll in the nation's history." In fact, there were approximately 22,000 casualties at Antietam, including wounded, captured and missing. Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001's death toll will certainly exceed the 2,620 Americans who died in a single day at Antietam.

Wayne M. Babovich, Ph.D.

must view as 'good' vs. 'bad'

To J Hammons: You write that we need "to be able to embrace other points of view" and that "if we are not able to do this, then we lose" (Letters, Sept. 25). Exactly which of bin Laden's points of view should we embrace? Would that be the one which is murderously intolerant of any other points of view or religions? Or maybe we should embrace the view that women are practically sub-human and should be treated as such. Taken to extremes which deny content and context, even popular phrases like "diversity" and "acceptance" can be reduced to absurdity. You also claim that "there is not, nor should there be, any morality here. Remember that the attackers attacked with moral fervor and certainty. If we attack them with the same fervor, how are we any different? ... We cannot fight this as 'good' guys vs. 'bad' guys." Why not?

Throughout history, distant and recent, maniacs like Hitler and Timothy McVeigh believed their causes to be righteous. Should we not feel like "good guys" in protecting ourselves against such people? You imply that America and its military is acting out of blind vengeance and intolerance against "opinions if they are different than ours." Yet, I'd wager that just about every faith and splinter sect finds its way to our shores. Overall, I see people's reaction these days as one which understands the necessity of defending our pretty admirable form of tolerance against destruction.

R. Tevault


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Pin It
Submit an event Jump to date

Latest in Editor's Note

© 2018 Gambit
Powered by Foundation