Letters to the Editor.

Reed Goes Overboard

In my civil liberties class for high school students, I teach United States v. The Progressive, the 1979 atomic secrets case, as an example of national security claims run riot.

Thanks to Adolph L. Reed Jr. ("Horowitz's Provocation," May issue), I can now test students' understanding of free speech principles in another area: Is defiance of "social consensus" a basis for barring speech not only for David Horowitz but, let us imagine, for abolitionists in the antebellum South, for communists and socialists in the 1940s and 1950s, for Martin Luther King Jr. in Alabama?

And even if "social consensus" is not as it seems on the surface, an absurdly overbroad restriction on expression, do we want self-appointed defenders of that "consensus" to destroy newspapers with which they disagree? Are black campus radicals in the North avatars of social consensus any more than their white-sheeted opposite numbers were in Mississippi?

No wonder the left is despised by so many Americans. I'm a leftist, but when I see pieces like Reed's, I hate the left.

John Roemer Parkton, Maryland

Rothschild Is Confused

As a new subscriber to The Progressive, I was disheartened to see Matthew Rothschild use his editorial space for a defense of David Horowitz's struggle against campus censorship ("Don't Censor Horowitz," May issue). At the risk of giving Horowitz even more free publicity, I must say that I believe all those who buy into Horowitz's view of censorship have a fundamental confusion about the relationship between freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Freedom of speech encompasses one's right to express oneself without hindrance. Freedom of the press involves a person's right to print and distribute information in any form that person chooses.

Horowitz claims to have been censored, as indeed he has been. But censorship is the free press right of any publication. For example, The Progressive can choose to print this letter, alter it before publication, or not print it at all. That is its right. Similarly, the Berkeley Daily Cal had every right to print the ad, not print the ad, or, as they did, print the ad and then print a retraction and an apology.

As for the removal of newspapers from campus racks, unwise and precipitous as this may have been, it would constitute a crime only if the publisher objected to such an action. It is quite possible that the publisher decided that the removal was in accordance with his or her wishes. Otherwise, of course, those responsible should be prosecuted, as this obviously violates freedom of the press.

"Don't Censor Horowitz"? I would hope the sentiment of The Progressive would be closer to "Don't Disparage Free Press and Free Speech."

Tom Gorman Pasadena, California

Horowitz Is a Pimple

Matthew Rothschild editorially laments the censorship of David Horowitz's stupid ideas concerning reparations for slavery, and Adolph L. Reed Jr. spends three pages to support editorial selectivity in newspaper ads.

Horowitz and the fascist rightwingers must be laughing all the way to their next dumb idea. The left has been taken in again. Horowitz has thrown out some stupid ideas, but it does not matter what the ideas are. The idea is just a convenient straw man. The straw man can have anything happen to him because the rightwingers are interested in the straw man only as bait. The left has grabbed the bait, shaken it around, analyzed it, tasted it, spit it out, fought the good fight, and sanctimoniously patted itself on the back for being dedicated to principles.

The right wing has succeeded for close to twenty-five years in controlling the debate on all public issues with their think tanks, capitalist money, media ownership, and preachers. The left will not start to win the debate until the left controls the premise.

David Horowitz is a pimple. Who cares? If you want to take his money, take it. If you want to refuse his money, refuse it. He merits absolutely no energy to even discuss the merits of censorship, slavery, or reparations. His point is not to elucidate but to obfuscate. Treat him for what he really is: an agent provocateur and an energy dissipater. In my consideration, he merits little attention, and I have already wasted enough energy on such a small blemish.

Richard Worthen Alton, Illinois

Nuclear Anarchy

I couldn't agree more with your analysis of the Bush Administration's reckless military and foreign policies ("The Dawn of the Second Cold War," Comment, May issue). Star Wars "National Missile Defense" will, no doubt, spark a new arms race, on Earth and in the heavens. Even the CIA recognizes that China and Russia would be forced to beef up their nuclear arsenals in response. U.S. Space Command's plans for extending warfare into outer space are spelled out, and you can read them on the web at http://www. peterson.af.mil/usspace/.

The Bush Administration is trying to preempt criticism by announcing its intention to reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear arms and to take some portion of our arsenal off the current, dangerous, hair-trigger alert status. These steps, considered on their own, sound very good.

But don't be fooled. Even if we reduce the deployed strategic arsenal, the U.S. plans to keep up to 8,000 nuclear warheads in reserve, and the weapons we take off active status will likely be replaced by newly designed ones, according to my colleague Martin Butcher of Physicians for Social Responsibility. And the de-alerting of some of our arsenal could well be thwarted by Star Wars; countries fearing that our missile defense would be effective in shooting down their offensive weapons would likely keep their weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to launch at a few minutes' notice.

Analyzed as a whole, the emerging Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nuclear policy threatens not only a new Cold War but nuclear anarchy.

Project Abolition and the Nuclear Disarmament Partnership--coalitions that include such leading disarmament groups as Physicians for Social Responsibility, Peace Action, Peace Links, Women's Action for New Directions, and 20/20 Vision-are mobilizing to stop Star Wars and the militarization of outer space, and to sound the call for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Under the slogan "Stop the New Arms Race," we are organizing a mass rally at the White House on Sunday, June 10, and an activist training and Congressional Education Days on June 11 and 12.

Stalwart peace groups such as the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Greenpeace, the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, the War Resisters League, the U.S. Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy have endorsed the June actions.

Anyone concerned about a more peaceful future, on Earth and in the heavens, is invited to join us in taking our message of peace and disarmament to the White House and the halls of Congress. Please see our web site at www. projectabolition.org.call us at [phone], or e-mail [e-mail].

Kevin Martin
Director, Project Abolition
Goshen, Indiana

Robert Reich for President

Thank you so much for the interview with Robert Reich (Ruth Conniff, May issue).

It was good to hear his optimism and his common sense. Please let me know where I can sign up for the "groundswell." He would be the shortest big man ever to hold office. Bob Reich for President in 2004!

John Smart Park Falls, Wisconsin

The editors welcome correspondence from readers on all topics, but prefer to publish letters that comment directly on material previously published in The Progressive. All letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Letters may be e-mailed to: [e-mail]. Please include your city and state.