Vouchers benefiting many minority students in D.C.
Re: "Education vouchers for private schools segregate children," From Readers, June 1
Edd Doerr's attack on education vouchers is an attack on the opportunities available to children to receive a quality education. If parents believe the public education system is failing, they have every right to reclaim their share of related tax funds without seeking his or anyone else's approval.
Choosing a Catholic institution is not a violation of separation of church and state, but denying parents that choice does constitute government obstruction.
This issue is not about the statistics Doerr cites. It is a question of right and wrong. When government takes parents' money and fails to deliver a quality education to their children, it's wrong to deny them access to a better alternative.
Doerr is also wrong when he claims that vouchers segregate by ethnicity and class. If anything, vouchers put more low-income children into classrooms with students from more well-to-do circumstances. For example, the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Fund has successfully funded the education of many minority students.
Putting children first means putting school choice first.
Modern liberals want to micromanage our lives
Re: "NYC proposes ban on large sodas at restaurants," June 1
On ABC's "This Week." columnist George Will summarized New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempt to ban sodas over 16 ounces as "the essence of contemporary liberalism; that is, something preposterous and something sinister ... "
Will's assessment is correct. Modern liberalism seeks to ban any number of behaviors: smoking outside (or inside), consuming trans fats, enjoying a toy with one's Happy Meal, bagging groceries in plastic bags, possessing a firearm for personal protection ... the list goes on and on.
Conservatives, who have long written off voters in big cities where many of these regulations are proposed, can differentiate themselves from their liberal opponents by highlighting their obsession with micromanaging every aspect of our lives.
Judge ignores First Amendment, Supreme Court ruling
Re: "How to kill the First Amendment," May 25
Lawyer Aaron Walker was recently arrested for blogging against left-wing activist and convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin in violation of the First Amendment, as The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott worried might happen.
Kimberlin obtained a restraining order from a court in liberal Montgomery County against his critic, based on Walker's blog posts and writings, which supposedly incited readers' hostility.Walker was arrested and detained for his constitutionally-protected speech.
Walker's speech criticizing a convicted terrorist for alleged misuse of the legal system was protected by the Supreme Court's Brandenburg ruling.But the Montgomery court ignored the fact that speech criticizing a person is protected under the First Amendment even if outraged readers react to it by expressing hostility or threats against the person criticized.
Prior to his ruling, Judge C.J. Vaughey reportedly said he didn't care about the Supreme Court ruling.Any judge who harbors such sentiments should be removed from the bench.