Steve Earle: Calling for sensitivity

To the editor,

While waiting for a recent letter of mine to reach the pages of this paper I have been watching and reading about the growing controversy about the ground zero mosque. What I find amazing and at the same time typical of those supporting the mosque is how they desire to change the subject of the voiced concerns from one of appropriateness into one of legality which neither side contends it is. Why are the supporters unwilling or unable to address the concerns of those opposed to it with anything other then demonizing them or trying to mischaracterize those concerns.

What's more, it seems it's the same cast of character's who in any other situation would be calling for Americans to show more sensitivity, more tolerance. So why is it that Americans, particularly white Christian Americans, are always called upon for this sensitivity and no other groups are? I think sensitivity to others is a good thing and it is clearly time that others began practicing what they preach. This imam in New York pushing this mosque is akin to a political proctologist telling America to bend over and smile. If the appeasers get their way and this thing is built it will be regarded by most Americans that the Islamic people have just said "up yours" to us. Tell me please how that will improve things between Muslims and the rest of American. It won't ! It will create division, distrust, perhaps even strife. And if someone out there tells me we on the right need to be more tolerant I'm going to swear a blue streak.

While I'm at it I may as well mention that Scott Craycraft regards me ignorant as to the anti-war movement back in the 60s and 70s. Living through it, I may have a different perspective then Scott but I'm under no illusions as to the piratical application the movement employed. He says I perpetuated a myth regarding the spitting upon returning vets. I can only say, really Scott? Right, and the earth is flat and the moon landings were done on a Hollywood sound stage. Prove it? Of course not except by the proof of my own eyes. If anyone was ever apprehended for the act any records would likely refer to disorderly conduct or something like that. Make no mistake Scott, it did happen and for a time there it was quite a common act.

Regarding Leo R. Sandy, Scott may regard him as a friend but his words echo the words of the radicals of the 60s and unless anyone is unaware the nutty professor, twice, with a year or two between incidents, accused this country of selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein. Both times numerous people wrote in and exposed this lie, and lie it was and is. His response was possibly the dumbest rationalization ever contrived. In my view his words are not to be trusted and it is justifiable to be suspicious of the man himself. But hey, he may be just the guy to watch a Sox game and down a couple of beers with. Enjoy the game Scott.

Steve Earle

Hill