Sitting student making wrong stand

To the editor:

Paul Harasim points out in his Tuesday article, "Student's stand: not to stand," that students have the right to abstain from standing or reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. A better issue is whether or not a student should choose to do it.

Spring Valley High School student Devon Smith says he doesn't stand because he's not Christian. So what? It's not a statement of faith, it's an acknowledgement of our nation's traditional principles and heritage. Being a nation means something, and if we've forgotten that, let's teach the next generation to cherish it again.

Perhaps this debate stems from the same loss of identity that allows us to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens.

Mr. Smith's "protest" amounts to little more than a spoiled tantrum. All the teacher did was send a disobedient student to the dean; in other words, she did her job. This teacher supports her!

Shame on Donna Pearson for encouraging such truculent rebellion in her son. Opposing the pledge is now as popular as the mass media that instigates this childish mind-set. Bending over for this boy only teaches him that his young instincts have more authority than the citizen majority.

Jamie Huston



Respect the flag

To the editor:

I'm glad Devon Smith has such a firm stand (or should I say sit) regarding the Pledge of Allegiance and the flag ("Student's stand: not to stand," Tuesday). I never served in the military, but I support the troops and contribute to disabled veterans groups on a regular basis. I don't always agree with the politicians, or their policies, but I respect their attempts at fairness. I respect the flag for what it is -- a symbol for our country. Sure the pledge addresses "God" in a sentence. But I can live with that statement because the flag represents this country, a true symbol of freedom.

So, Mr. Smith, if you can't respect the flag by standing, are you relinquishing all of your other freedoms? It's nice to pick and choose. Maybe the United States should pick and choose what freedoms you are entitled to receive in this country. Sounds fair to me.

If our own citizens can't respect the flag and what it stands for, how can we expect people in other countries to respect our nation?

R. Maige



McCain bashing

To the editor:

I'm not sure what to make of columnist Ann Coulter's comment that she will vote for Hillary Clinton before she will support John McCain (Review-Journal, Feb. 3). Her schtick has always been about how bad liberals are for the country. Now she proposes voting for one of the most ultraliberal of the socialist-leaning Democrats, Hillary Clinton, rather than the one Republican, John McCain, most able to defeat the Clintons.

She claims that Sen. McCain is a closet liberal because he has chosen to compromise with Democrats on a couple of issues. But that isn't enough to taint him as a liberal -- to me, it means he's a statesman and more likely traded his support for their causes for theirs on his. That's allegedly what politics is about, at least in the ideal sense.

Vernon Clayson



Bush's evils

To the editor:

It's easy to see that Review-Journal Publisher Sherman Frederick has studied at the feet of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. His Sunday tirade on the Clintons and his label of "evil" is just the tactic that the supreme Republican gas bags of the airwaves use when they can't face the inadequacy of their own party and leaders.

Mr. Frederick considers the Clintons evil because they mentioned race in an election. However, the use of national fear seems to be fine with him. It's what got Dick Cheney and Karl Rove elected in 2004. Lying us into a war, spying on American citizens via telephone and e-mail, obstructing the 9/11 committee, holding secret energy meetings with big oil, going to Saudi Arabia to make deals, removing habeas corpus, financially raping the middle class and elderly while enriching corporate coffers, and swiftboating war heroes is fine. But mention race? How "evil." And how naive and blind.

Randall Buie



Moral relativism

To the editor:

I see in your Sunday editorial you've claimed the high moral ground for America in the Iraq war. While aptly describing the term "guerrilla," you seem to have relegated it to "evil" status, after pardoning our own Minutemen. But how do you differentiate al-Qaida killing "retarded women" by blowing up Iraqis, from George W. Bush's killing "retarded women" while blowing up Iraqis at the beginning of the war?

Jerry Sturdivant