Karen Barker

To the editor,

In a recent letter, Mike Verhoeksobjects to "ad hominem" attacks against Doug Lambert by some people responding to Mr. Lambert’s May 6 column. According to my dictionary, "ad hominem" means "attacking one’s opponent rather than dealing with the subject under discussion." I assume he is referring to two letters in which the terms "dittohead" and "cowardly bullies" were applied to Mr. Lambert. I would have preferred that those letter writers avoid such name-calling, though I am not surprised that people had a strong reaction to Mr. Lambert’s column, in which he used the word "scumbag" to refer to Iraqi civilian prisoners, and advocated "Saddam-style" techniques to get themto talk.

I myself have tried very hard to avoid ad hominem attacks in my letters, as I don’t believe they are helpful in making my points. Mr. Verhoeks apparently considers ad hominem attacks inappropriate, though I don’t recall him expressing any objections when Mr. Lambert referred to me and others as "Ms. Typical Local Peacenik", "Local Peacenik Mouthpiece", and "anti-American peaceniks". In fact, I would suggest that Mr. Verhoeks himself engages in ad hominem attacks when he questions our intelligence, labels those who disagree with him as "you libs", and claims "....it makes you look stupid." It thus appears that his objection to ad hominem attacks applies only when they are directed at those with whom he agrees.

Disagreeing with someone, questioning their position, and even stating that you consider a person’s actions and/or ideas are wrong or immoral do not constitute an ad hominem attack. In a civil society, people should be able to disagree with one another without engaging in personal attacks, via name-calling or other disparaging remarks. It is indeed unfortunate that ad hominem attacks have become a common response from both the pro- and anti-war camps.

Mr. Verhoeks makes a number of other points in his letter with which Itake issue, but I will only address a couple in the interest of brevity.

I don’t think either side has the moral high ground on the issue of killing, or death-making as it was called by one of my teachers. In his view, to be morally coherent on this issue, one needs to oppose ALL forms of death-making — war, abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, murder, mercy killing, and the indirect death-making that results from inadequate nutrition, housing, and health care. Furthermore, the commandment as I learned it back in parochial school was "Thou shalt not kill." Period. No exceptions. From where I stand, I see moral incoherency on both sides.

Mr. Verhoeks admonishes us to "look at the values that America stands for." I’d like to see his list of these values, because I wonder if they’d be the same values the rest of the world sees acted out on a daily basis by our government, our corporations, and our entertainment industry. It is said actions speak louder than words. We would do well to reflect on what our actions are saying,instead of simply claiming we're "the good guys" and acting surprised when others disagree.

Karen Barker

Laconia