by
Martha Doran
09/09/2006
The following was printed in the Culver City
News "Readers Letters" September 7th
2006
Re Alan Myerson’s response (Letters, Aug. 3)
to my letter (Aug. 24) on Carl Hampton’s
column of Aug. 17 (“Your Money Matter”) in
which Mr. Hampton used (abused?) his
“financial column” in its entirety to
carry on an unrelated anti-government tirade
replete with unsubstantiated opinions ad
accusations:
I did not state nor did I imply that our civil
liberties are protected or provided by the
Department of Homeland Security, as Mr.
Myerson recounted—just that we have not
suffered their “complete erosion” as Mr.
Hampton asserted. Please stick with the facts
if you’re going to attack someone in a
public venue.
As for voter fraud—always has been, to some
degree, always will be. Perhaps Mr. Myerson
has heard or read about the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon
election and the widespread, proven voter
fraud that resulted in Kennedy’s win?
The ability to demonstrate: there is a
difference between public protest and complete
anarchy.
So protestors are to some extent managed,
typically if not primarily to provide for the
safety and convenience of working people going
about their business, and for the safety of
our public servants who risk their lives daily
to keep order for everyone, including
protestors. So what? Has Mr. Myerson seen
footage of Tiananmen Square in 1989?
Muslims are not free to worship in this
country? Tell it to the 7-11 employees on
Washington Boulevard who must cordon off their
parking lot to the large crowds at the King
Fahd mosque on Fridays. Please, Mr. Myerson,
name three Muslims who have been prevented
from worshiping publicly in the U.S.
Conspicuous by their absence are Mr.
Myerson’s attacks on my statements regarding
the lack of further 9/11-type acts against the
U.S. citizens on U.S. soil—the single most
important achievement of the Department of
Homeland Security, and the single most
important outcome of the infringements on the
“civil liberties” of known or suspected
terrorists’ phone call privacy and money
transfers.
Lastly, gee, I am an “extremist zealot?”
Another example of an attempt to thwart public
conversation and dissent. You can disagree,
and fabricate, and publish, and repeat ad
infinitum (whether substantiated or not)
whatever you like, God forbid anyone disagree
with you—is that it? While intelligent,
substantiated discourse serves to further
introspection and informed decision-making,
please, let’s leave the name-calling to the
five-year-olds, shall we?
Martha Doran
Culver City
