George -

I've read the recent postings of both Blair Hawkins and Barbara Rich on your website, and I have to say that I don't agree with Mr. Hawkins assessment of Ms. Rich's commentary about Secretary Rice. Ms. Rich has her opinion of Ms. Rice and has expressed it rather clearly in her editorial. Yes, her opinion is obviously biased against Secretary Rice, but Ms. Rich doesn't slander Secretary Rice – as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have clearly done to John Kerry.

I don't see how what Ms. Rich said could amount to hate speech. It's no more hate speech than the T-shirt of President Bush holding a donkey down and trying to brand it with a "W" [see below] which the National Review is trying to sell on its website - you could argue that it's hate speech against Democrats following the same mentality of these neo-cons. Both Ms. Rich's comments and the anti-Democratic Party T-shirt are forms of free expression, protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America - a document politicians seems to forget about when it fits their political agenda.

Are we going to brand everything that a person says as "hate speech" simply because someone doesn't like or agree with what that person says? It's Un-American in my book. Mr. Hawkins was probably just following instructions given in the "talking points" that BC'04 has instructed Bush supporters to carry out, which is publicly labeling criticisms or even political satire which has a different point of view than the elite neo-conservative club as hate speech. I'm sure BC'04 will be proud of Ms. Rich's efforts to follow their orders.

All I ask for in this country is that people let themselves form their own opinions independent of a political party or movement and its "talking points." I'd like to have a debate with people who can think critically and justify their opinions in their own words, not in the words doled out by a particular party or movement. I thought to be American was to be independent-minded and to have self-determination.

I agree that there are people on the far left who vehemently despise George W. Bush and follow the same group mentality that some neo-cons seem to have, id est, unable to justify their opinions without resorting to a movement-based script. But conservatives - and especially comedians - acted the same way towards Bill Clinton when he was in office. I just saw a Saturday Night Live rerun where comedian Norm MacDonald called Bill Clinton a murderer. Calling George W. Bush a Nazi isn't much different, in my opinion. So why have the neo-cons suddenly turned into a bunch of crybabies when their guy is on the receiving end? Could the neo-cons be asking for a double standard for their guy? Of course! It's politics! It's the pot calling the kettle black, big time.

The neo-cons should face up to the reality that George W. Bush and his politics are not liked by roughly half of the American population, and that these Americans have the right to express themselves freely and respect their Constitutional rights.

So what if Ms. Rich nitpicks the linguistic oddities of certain people. That doesn't necessarily make her a hate-monger, just someone who probably has too much time on her hands and really needs to get a hobby. Technically, none of us Americans speak proper English anyway, so I don't see why we should make a fuss about the way certain people pronounce certain words. (Just to clear things up, the "ch" as pronounced in English is linguistically represented by the combination of the "t" sound with the "sh" sound as pronounced in English, meaning "t" + "sh" = "ch". If I could write it in the International Phonetic Alphabet, what I'm saying would be a bit more obvious, but I can't, so deal. Anyone who is familiar with the International! Phonetic Alphabet will know what I'm talking about. But just try saying "t" followed by "sh" and you'll see what I mean).

The neo-cons should stop whining about hate-mongering and start talking about real issues.

- Joseph Cheek (electronic mail, August 20, 2004)