Unfettered Letters

Words to recall

Words of an eminent jurist from the previous century: "We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

E. Henning
Kansas City

Not spreading freedom

Our flag stands for freedom, a principle we want to spread throughout the world. And in every Muslim nation, there are many who yearn for freedom — freedom to dress as they please, speak their mind, read what they want and marry whom they wish. Yet as Americans, we have seriously betrayed these Muslims’ hopes for freedom.

Inadvertently but predictably, we have strengthened the hands of the most backward, belligerent and oppressive segments of Islam. They have been organized and motivated by resistance to our invasion and occupation of Muslim countries.

While President Bush claims to be spreading freedom, America actually is galvanizing oppressors, even in a democracy like Turkey, where radical factions now are gaining strength and demanding strict Islamic law.

Inadvertently but predictably, our actions have shamed our flag and the most important principle for which it stands — freedom.

Sorry, Old Glory.

Fred Slough
Kansas City

President’s speech

I listened intently to President Bush’s speech to the VFW convention Wednesday (I wish it had been given during TV’s prime time), and it was the best speech I have ever heard him give.

The historical background he provided regarding the stand that President Harry Truman and others took during World War II, as well as in the Korean and Vietnam wars, resonated in clarity and accuracy. Our successful introduction of democracy in Japan after World War II and the resulting peace in Asia can give us hope for the future of the Mideast.

My father worked with Harry Truman (he was the first curator of the Truman Library), and I think President Truman would endorse Bush’s stand in Iraq. It is not easy to stand for principle — particularly when public opinion is against you.

However, Truman held the course during the war and afterward, when told that democracy in Asia was impossible. If alive today, Truman would agree with Bush’s commitment to persevere in Iraq so that the Mideast, too, can achieve democracy and peace.

Julie Perry Sherriff
Leawood

Again the president, in his speech at the VFW convention, contends that Iraq is a democracy. Well, Mr. President, if Iraq is a democracy, why is Islam its “official religion,” which you put your stamp of approval on, being the supreme commander of that occupation? There is no such thing as “democracy” without freedom of religion.

Under Saddam Hussein, the Christian community was able to attend services in peace. Now they are being run out of the country altogether. Now the Sunnis are battling the Shiites in the streets.

Is this what our country was founded on? Is this worth losing American troops for? I’m sorry, it in no way resembles democracy.

D.R. Sartain
St. Joseph

Instant runoff voting

In “Two-party system warps our democracy” (7/21, Opinion) Midwest Voices columnist Bob Keith Bonebrake bemoans our political system, in which many citizens vote for candidates they dislike the least because voting for candidates outside the Democratic or Republican parties seems equivalent to not voting at all.

There is an alternative system. Instant runoff voting lets people vote their consciences. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, he or she wins.

If no candidate receives a majority of first-place ballots, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and the votes cast for that candidate are credited to the candidates according to those voters’ second choices.

Instant runoff voting frees minor-party candidates from a “spoiler” role, allows voters to express their honest preferences and ensures a majority winner. It offers a chance to break the stranglehold the two dominant parties have on our political process.

Mary Lindsay
ReclaimDemocracy.org,
Kansas City area chapter
Kansas City

Rights of unborn

I found Melvina Young’s Midwest Voices commentary “A democracy doesn’t ensure women’s rights” (6/23, Opinion) pathetic. A democracy, Ms. Young, should ensure all persons’ rights.

She cites efforts to ban partial-birth abortion. By U.S. statute, partial-birth abortion is defined as “any abortion in which the fetus is extracted past the navel outside the body of the mother, or in the case of head first, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother in order to cause the death of the fetus.”

Young decries the fact that the partial-birth abortion ban includes no exception regarding the mother’s health. The fetus is half-born and will continue to be born if not killed by the abortionist before completion of the birth. Now how, at this point, is this going to impact the mother’s health?

And tell me, Ms. Young, whose rights are being violated?

D’Ann Dreiling
Belton

Vice president, secrecy

For the 30 percent of you who still approve of the job that this administration is doing, just look at Page 6 of Friday’s paper (6/22). There you will see Dick Cheney’s office making it perfectly clear for all to see that they intend to operate outside the laws and rules of government, including rules approved by this administration (“Cheney’s office rejects rules for classified data; Dispute over required reports reflects wider issue of vice president’s desire for secrecy”).
The concept of government “by the people, for the people” is being ignored completely. Bush should rein in this renegade office, or Congress should move to impeach. My guess is that there isn’t enough courage, competence or leadership in either branch of government for this to occur. We should expect and demand better from our elected officials.
K.A. Newman
Prairie Village