By Jared Chausow
By Katie Toth
By Elizabeth Flock
By Albert Samaha
By Anna Merlan
By Jon Campbell
By Jon Campbell
By Albert Samaha
Peter Noel's assertion in the article "Mark Green, You Can't Hide" [October 23] that Green was racist in 1967 is absurd. If a liberal law student in the late '60s raised the issue of racist civil action, one would simply assume he was against itnot for it. The excerpt from Randall Robinson's book, printed in Noel's article, says nothing that would shed light on this. Robinson just assumes that Green was a bigot, and Noel concludes that the story "speaks for itself."
According to this logic, anyone who plays devil's advocate is the devil. If you argue that a legal precedent could threaten minorities and aid bigots, then you might as well be wearing a white hood.
That an intelligent writer like Noel should be capable of such spurious reasoning is discouraging. His case against Green does not "speak for itself"; it rests on assumptions that are not only implausible but small and ungenerous.
NICKEL AND DIMED
Barbara Ehrenreich, interviewed in Rachel Neumann's "The Empire Strikes Back" [October 9], finds it "heartbreaking" that "the strongest response to corporate globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such a violent and misogynist ideology." What's heartbreaking is that otherwise intelligent analysts on the left, despite their condemnation of the September 11 tragedy, are so eager to give the attacks credence as a form of political discourse. Are international terrorists simply allies gone astray in a noble fight against globalization and militarism? It's time for the left to stop granting them intellectual leeway.
David R. Adler
Richard Goldstein, writing about "dodging tear gas thrown by the satraps of the Greatest Generation" during the '60s ["The Price of Unity," October 9] tells it all. Why can't self-proclaimed "intellectuals" credit patriotism and love of country to non-self-proclaimed intellectuals? True, Colin Powell and I are graduates of the very non-Ivy League CCNY, but perhapsalthough both of us are retired generalsGoldstein could credit us with some degree of judgment, intellect, and dedication to the Constitution.
Walt J. Bickston
Re Richard Goldstein's "The Price of Unity": I believe it is laughable that Goldstein laments the evils of suppressing dissent in a newspaper that has not a modicum of conservative or even moderate political philosophy included in its pages. If you want to see what homogenized media looks like, look no further than The Village Voice.
In response to Peter Noel's article "Homeland Terrorism: How Arabs and Muslims Should Combat ItDespite What the Jewish Defense Organization Says" [October 2]: The JDO has fought against some black leaders of the Crown Heights pogrom who were on the ground urging Jew-hating rioters to beat and murder Jews. That speaks for itself about Noel and his lying statement calling the JDO "anti-Arab and anti-black." The JDO fights against Arab terrorists like the PLO and Hamas, whose goal is to destroy Israel and Jews. Now the JDO is exposing a Jewish lawyer, Stanley Cohen, who has offered to defend Osama bin Laden.
Cohen has publicly stated that he supports Hamas and its terror against Israel. He also was quoted in The New York Observer as saying that he only defends political groups he agrees with. This proves Cohen is a self-hating Jew, willing to help the enemies of Israel and America, who just blew up thousands of innocent people in New York.
The JDO intends to legally wreck Cohen's law practice and disrupt this traitor's efforts to help a group of Muslim terrorists living here, who, following Osama bin Laden's instructions, have been trying to get their hands on nuclear and biological materials to launch an even worse attack. When they murder a few hundred thousand more, Cohen would be right there calling them good guys for attacking America.
Jewish Defense Organization
Re JDO chief Mordechai Levy's statements in the article "Homeland Terrorism" labeling lawyer Stanley Cohen a "self-hating Jew" and a "traitor": Cohen is neither. He simply realizes what is required if the U.S. isn't to become the same as our enemies. No matter what Osama bin Laden has or has not done, he's entitled to a trial. To have this, he must have representation. We must protect our rights, and the only way to do that is to provide equal rights to all people.
John K. Bowman
San Antonio, Texas
Wayne Barrett, in "Green's Crisis Advantage" [October 16], suggests that mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer, by remaining focused on the unmet needs of the city prior to September 11, "seemed almost tone deaf" in light of the Trade Center attack.
Tell that to the education, housing, and social services advocates who are urgently trying to figure out how to prevent the disappearance of their issues from the political radar screen. That urgency is a direct result of the Giuliani years of cuts and neglectwhich were also years of budget surpluses.
Candidates should be willing to say forthrightly that since this was an attack on the U.S., addressing the economic consequences of it ought to be the responsibility of the federal government. The city and state must address preexisting local needs, particularly in the coming period of budget deficits.