Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintDo liberals take pride in abortion?
In his Midweek Perspectives piece "A Proud Liberal" (Sept. 26), Leonard Boasberg lists all the wonderful accomplishments of American liberalism but seems to have forgotten the one issue that has become the litmus test of today's liberal: abortion. Is he just as proud of late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion, abortion for minors without parental consent, abortion for minors in cases of statutory rape, abortion without informed consent or just abortion in general?
Mr. Boasberg also states: "We (liberals) believe, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, and that goes for women, too." Perhaps he should have continued his quote until he hit the line about "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," which declares life as the first of such rights, all other rights being moot if you're deprived of the right to life.
Preborn children are human, living and, after abortion, dead. Is this a source of pride for American liberals? I hope not.
E.A. SVIRBEL
Whitehall
A proud liberal, too
Regarding "A Proud Liberal" (Sept. 26) by Leonard Boasberg: A good many years ago, I clipped and saved another piece by another Leonard, which if I could locate it, I would send to Mr. Boasberg. It was titled "I'm a Liberal and Proud of It," when liberals were being targeted by conservatives and Republicans then as now.
The author was the musician and composer Leonard Bernstein, and he also laid out why "liberal" is a proud label to wear. Ever since, I have called myself a liberal (and a feminist), even though it is not a popular title to claim, in my own personal attempt to make it back in time to popularity.
CORNELIA SMOLLIN
Whitehall
Good for the bishop
As a seminarian at St. Paul Seminary during the 1985-86 school year, I had the privilege of having then-Father David A. Zubik as my spiritual director. Even though it's been many years since I left the seminary -- and Pittsburgh, for that matter -- I remember him as a very reasonable, thoughtful and prayerful man.
So I applaud now-Bishop David A. Zubik's decision to live at St. Paul Seminary in East Carnegie, as opposed to residing in the diocese's Shadyside mansion ("A Bishop Settles for a Humbler Abode," Sept. 27). This move is long overdue. Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement, once observed that too many of our bishops live in palaces while God's poor live and die in the streets.
I hope Bishop Zubik takes the next logical step and dedicates the mansion to serving the poorest of the poor directly. Some in the neighborhood may object to their new neighbors, but Dorothy Day would certainly smile.
GARY KOPYCINSKI
Park Forest, Ill.
The writer is a native of Baldwin Borough.
Iraq is complicated
In his Sept. 26 letter, Bill Hoagland reports that he was able to convince his 9-year-old son that we should stay in Iraq, since otherwise the "hijackers of Islam" will not "leave us alone." I suppose his logic would seem irrefutable to a 9-year-old and also to our president, who would seem to have comparable analytical capabilities.
However, I would like to remind Mr. Hoagland and his son that, when recently asked by Sen. John Warner whether our continued presence in Iraq actually made us safer, Gen. David Petraeus, perhaps caught off guard by the simplicity of the question, admitted that he did not know.
Somehow I suspect that Gen. Petraeus understands that the roots of Islamic fundamentalism are complex, difficult to understand by most non-Muslims, let alone 9-year-olds, and unlikely to be ameliorated by our continued military occupation of Iraq.
ROBERT HOFFMAN
Point Breeze
U.S. intervention
I was astonished and dismayed at the willful ignorance in Bill Hoagland's Sept. 26 letter concerning his 9-year-old son's questions about war protesters in Oakland. His son had the good sense to back the protesters, but Mr. Hoagland tried to convince him otherwise by using two of the most ridiculous mantras from the sloganeering wing of the Bush White House: "They hate us for our freedom" and "we have to fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here."
He uses the Iranian hostage crisis, the Beirut barracks bombing, the USS Cole and, of course, the 9/11 attacks, as examples of unprovoked attacks on a docile United States. On the contrary, all these attacks can be traced to meddling and/or occupation of the Middle East by an anything-but-docile United States, whether you talk about the United States' 1950s support of the shah's brutal dictatorship, which destabilized Iran for nearly the rest of the century, or U.S. troops' presence in Islamic holy lands in Saudi Arabia, which led to the 9/11 attacks.
To pretend that "we're leaving them alone" while they inexplicably attack us "for our freedom" is delusional. They don't care about our freedom. They care that we are there! How many times can you kick a hornet's nest and not get stung? The sad thing is he is passing this ignorance on to his son.
I don't know Mr. Hoagland's age but, if he is truly behind this "war," the military is taking recruits up to the age of 42 and, if he is eligible, I'm sure they'd love to talk to him. And will he offer up his son in nine years, when he becomes eligible for service if we are still "fighting 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em here"?
RICHARD ADAMS
Johnstown
Political delusions
I was sadly amused by Bill Hoagland's letter ("Can't Answer That," Sept. 26) which proved that his 9-year-old son's initial perceptions are more intelligent than his own. It is worrisome that the child will accept his Karl Rove-inspired political delusions.
Maybe he should turn off Fox News and try to clarify to the boy why we are spending billions each week sacrificing young Americans' lives in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists. Or why the Bush administration blithely permits Osama bin Laden to cavort safely in the territory of our war-on-terror "ally," Pakistan.
Or how the past four years of neocon Republican policies of deception, corruption, intransigence and incompetence have weakened our military, strengthened the terrorists and undermined our national security.
I wonder how Mr. Hoagland's Bush-loving paternal wisdom will hold up a decade from now when (God forbid!) the broken military has reinstituted the draft and his son is sent over there to die for Halliburton.
DON FINCH
Harrison
Iraqis as terrorists?
In response to Bill Hoagland's Sept. 26 letter ("Can't Answer That") about the anti-war protesters:
His obviously inquisitive young son asked regarding removing our soldiers from Iraq, "So if we leave them alone, they won't leave us alone?" Mr. Hoagland's one word answer was "exactly." His 9-year-old will someday grow old enough to inquire of his examples of terrorists attacking "U.S. embassies, the USS Cole, the Marine barracks, Bali, London and, of course 9/11." Mr. Hoagland, if your son asks, "How many of these men were Iraqis?" what will your "one word answer" be then?
These protesters "can answer that."
J.K. BOROWSKI
New Kensington
All nations must help slow global warming
President Bush was one of few national leaders who skipped the United Nations meeting on global warming last week ("Bush Skips U.N. Warming Meetings," Sept. 24). As described in the article, Mr. Bush decided that his own meetings had precedence over the international meetings. He believes nations should be able to set their own timetables for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
This would not work effectively because there is little motive for individual nations to reduce emissions. They would all blame each other, believing that they were not the sole cause of global warming, and would push for other nations to instead reduce their emissions.
A worldwide approach must be taken to efficiently reverse global warming. The United States must go to these meetings as the world's superpower to show other nations they should be doing work, too.
Another problem is that under the Kyoto Protocol, developing nations have the prerogative not to worry about the amount of greenhouse gases they are putting into the air. China is considered a developing nation and is emitting a significant percentage of greenhouse gases.
All nations should be considered important for any reduction to occur, and these nations must work together to achieve this.
BRIAN NIMMO
McCandless
