Several newspapers have started having those sections where people can

write or call in and leave their opinion and remarks. The Atlanta Journal

Constitution has "The Vent," while The Citizen features "Free

Speech," and other papers have similar sections. While I sometimes

find them amusing and clever, I have to confess that I don't like

these sections at all. I am a firm believer that, if one desires to voice

an opinion, then one should have the guts and integrity to sign one's

name. These sections, which require no signature, allow cowardly people

to pretend to be brave and say things anonymously that they would never

say face to face or if they had to put their name to their writing.

Favorite targets in the "Free Speech" section, for example,

include the mayor, the sheriff, city council members, county commission

members, the police chief, the school board ... well, you get the

idea. Why not just write a letter to the editor (which requires a signature)

or, better still, attempt to arrange a meeting with these public officials

face to face and discuss issues with respect and civility? Or, does that

take too much courage?

I've written columns for this newspaper for seven and a half years - that's

around 390 articles - and I've had to sign my name to every

single one. Sometimes people email me and take me to task; sometimes

I get stopped in the supermarket by people who disagree with me. I accept

all this as the cost of expressing an opinion. There are some columns

I have not yet had the fortitude to write because I am aware that there

are consequences to actions, even if that action is a piece in the Opinion

section of the newspaper. People will hold me accountable for my words

and thoughts.

Which is what people who write to The Vent and Free Speech are able

to avoid. It's a free country - not as free as it once was,

but that's for another column - and people can speak their

mind. But, if one refuses to sign one's name, is that person's

opinion worth considering? I think not.

Recently, a citizen wrote in and spouted off about the editorial section

of the Friday edition of The Citizen newspaper, which is where this column

appears most regularly. He (or she) said that the columnists who are

members of "the radical right" were ruining the newspaper.

He (she?) said, "these columnists selected are all weird." The

writer evidently does not like the "vicious women" or the "black

columnists" who he (she?) compared to Rush Limbaugh. This writer

then went on to say that "some (of the columnists) are simply selfish

enough to just want everyone to have the same chance they had to make

a lot of money, knowing that it is impossible for all but the devious,

with the small exception of the lucky ones (and the more intelligent)."

"Well," I thought, "in which category does the writer

put me?" I wish to announce publicly here and now that I am not

a vicious woman. Am I a member of the "radical right?" That,

I suppose depends upon one's definition. I believe in God, I am

an evangelical Christian, and I am a Marine Corps veteran. Is that "rightist?" I

am pro-life, pro-family, pro-equal rights, pro equal pay for equal work,

pro-civil rights for genuine minorities, and pro-police (when they are

honest and incorruptible). Does that put me in the "radical" camp?

I vote Republican most of the time because I can't, in good conscience,

vote for a Democrat who favors the legalized slaughter of the pre-born.

I will not, however, vote for a pro-abortion Republican. What does that

make me?

I am not a black columnist either, although I am one-eighth Cherokee

Indian, which didn't, but should, qualify me for special scholarships

and consideration, since I have a shared heritage with an oppressed minority.

I cannot defend against the charge of being "weird." There

are just too many people who would agree with the writer on that one.

The writer seems to indicate that the only people who are successful

are those who are selfish, devious, lucky, or smart. I am of the opinion

that anyone - yes, anyone - in America who refuses to accept

victim status can better him or her self and create a better life for

the generations to come. My great-great grandfather was a tenant farmer

who served time as a POW in a Yankee prison camp and survived to return

to a wasteland called "Poor Valley" in Hawkins County, Tennessee,

where he raised a mess of kids. His son Calvin, my great-grandfather,

I know nothing about. His son, William, my grandfather, fathered eight

kids, all of whom did well for themselves, and his oldest son Bill, my

father, came back from World War II, got a GED, educated himself further

and went to work and bought a house and paid it off when I was eight

years old. When he died, my mother was well provided for and he didn't

owe a dime to anybody.

I was the first to complete college and go on to do graduate and doctoral

work. Two of my three sons already own their own home and my third son

is busy protecting the rights of people who share their opinions in the

newspaper but refuse to sign their names. He is in the military serving

during a time of war. Good grief, quit whining and hiding behind anonymity!

Ok, I feel better now. I exercised my free speech and I vented. And

now I shall sign my name ...

Home | News | Sports | Opinion | Weekend | Special Sections | Classifieds | Archives

Copyright 2004-Fayette Publishing, Inc.