Readers Give Their Thoughts On The Aclu

Dear Jennifer James: On your comments today (March 10) on the ACLU: I don’t know any organization or person that is “always right.” I find that thinking of the United States without the ACLU makes me shudder. - Del

Dear Jennifer: Thank you for the wonderful response on the ACLU. The discussion of the “common good” is long overdue in our society. We are so mired in individual freedoms and rights that we find loopholes and excuses for people’s bad behavior.

Your comments regarding the ACLU were painfully accurate. A bunch of academics sit around in a sterile atmosphere and discuss laws, rules and regulations on a higher level, apparently ignoring the “real life” effects and consequences. It’s one thing for lawyers to take all sides of all issues in their private practice, but it’s quite another for an organization dedicated to the civil liberties of all Americans to ignore the best interests of the communityat-large. - Al

Dear Ms. James: I am an avid reader of your column. Your column on liberal and conservative extremes and the ACLU was especially cogent. It applies equally well to politics. Neither extreme is acceptable nor necessarily desired by the vast majority of citizens.

The ACLU practices a policy of questioning any invasion of personal rights of individuals as opposed to their rights within society, and there is a difference. When the ACLU convinces a judge of the validity of an individual complaint, society loses a little of their rights each time. - Lewis

Dear Readers: The current political joke is that we now have a choice between the center (Bill Clinton) and the middle (Bob Dole). The extremists lost in this round.

I’m sure you would agree that there are some cases where extremism in the cause of liberty is good (free speech, police brutality) and the problem is our inability to separate those cases from cases (urinating on or sleeping on sidewalks or reasonable suspicion or search) where individual rights might not supersede community rights.

We desperately need a reasoned, thoughtful, public debate on the definition of “common good”. We also need some visionary legal minds to evaluate the current distortions in the legal system. When I contrast the opinions of Alan Dershowitz with Joseph Scalia, I lose hope. - Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: I am writing in response to your column about welfare and work (March 17). I am on Supplemental Social Security for my epileptic disorder. I have two sons. My husband must be home to help me care for the children so we had to apply for Aid for Dependent Children to survive. Although most persons consider welfare parents inadequate, many, I’m sure, do not understand everyone’s situation and who are they to judge? We do not make a lot of money. More often than not we have to sell our personal items just to keep food on the table and coats on our children’s backs. My spouse and I both work 24 hours a day to keep our home clean and our children well cared for even if we may never acquire outside jobs.

Jennifer, try not to be so prejudicial. - Mrs. M

Dear Mrs. M: So many of us freeze into a position of defense that we do not read what is actually written. I pointed out that AFDC was designed for just such a situation as yours. Few Americans would want to deny you the help you need.

Many resent welfare recipients who could work and choose not to. I think that welfare is a serious problem when it becomes a lifestyle and moves from one generation to the next instead of a safety net for those who are ill or face hard times.

You ask, “Who are they to judge?” When you take from others, you sign a contract to be asked daily “Why?” and “Do you deserve it?” If, as in your case, you can easily answer “Yes” then fine, but do not be offended at the questions.

I would like to see fairness in government programs based on need. What concerns me is the increasing number of people who believe that they are supposed to be taken care of; in the case of the wealthy, free to take advantage of the government when they can.

What seems to be happening is that people who truly need help may not receive it because of the anger that workers are feeling at carrying any extra tax burden. We are taking the American tradition of help thy neighbor and turning it into exploit thy neighbor, and over the long haul it won’t work. - Jennifer

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Jennifer James The Spokesman-Review