Letters to the editor for Wednesday, June 4, 2008

I must respond to the May 31 letter writer who lamented the death of the First Amendment.

There is a huge difference between the government telling us "You can't say that" and an individual responding "I don't like what you said." The first is government censorship and is prohibited by the First Amendment. The second is the exercise of my First Amendment rights. The First Amendment works both ways.

Yes, Al Franken had every right to write his satirical piece for Playboy magazine. However, we also have the right to tell him that we find his writings offensive and question whether he has the judgment and values that we want in our elected representatives.

Rep. Betty McCollum is not the threat to the First Amendment. The letter writer is the real threat when he suggests that you best not open your mouth to voice any disagreement.

DAN ULMER, PRIOR LAKE

I'm reading kudos for former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who, depending on your opinion, has come clean about what really happened in the White House or has shown a lack of loyalty for coming clean about what really happened in the White House.

Either way, I'm not reading anything that persuades me that any press secretary's words are worth the paper they are written on.

JACK R. ZACHOW, PLYMOUTH

Covering his tail Scott McClellan is a pathetic figure. Far from being a conscience-clearing exposé, his new book, "What Happened," smacks of opportunism and greed.

McClellan paints himself as a puppet, a gullible mouthpiece for the Bush administration oblivious to the supposed falsehoods he uttered from the podium in the White House pressroom. If he really has come to be so offended by his own conduct as press secretary, he is admitting to an incredible lack of personal integrity.

Unlike Dick Clarke and Paul O'Neill, who left over legitimate policy differences with the Bush administration and subsequently published books telling their stories, McClellan bought into the Bush mantra all along and now finds it convenient -- and lucrative -- to eschew his complicity with the Bush administration's philosophy and policies.

Let the American public see McClellan for who he really is: a childish opportunist trying desperately to reconcile the regret he is feeling as the administration in which he served has become unpopular.

JOHN GRIMES, MINNEAPOLIS

The big one yet to come Scott McClellan's conscience has caught up with him, and I applaud him for having the courage to tell the real story. Now wait until Colin Powell writes his memoir.

MARGUERITE DALY, BURNSVILLE

Regarding the May 31 letter "Blind student excels / He had help," I have to set the record straight. No credit was given to teachers of blind students because, from my experience, their attitudes were my largest hurdles.

They had very low expectations for me as a Braille reader. I did not get to use Braille or to learn to read well until sixth grade, and only after my parents demanded it.

My potential in reading and travel skills was reached through training I received at the National Federation of the Blind centers in Minneapolis and in Ruston, La.

My confidence came from successful blind people and my parents, who believed in me and showed me what was possible.

I needed to help my classroom teachers understand blindness accurately because my other teachers did not. I am a junior in high school and have for the first time this year a teacher of blind students who has normal expectations for me.

I reached my academic success through my own hard work, hours of study and choosing higher-level courses for myself. If my parents or I had listened to the low expectations of my former teachers, the article would have been a different story.

JORDAN RICHARDSON, BLAINE

Second-class education The May 31 letter "Blind student excels / He had help" is not a true or accurate reflection of the services that are provided for students who are blind.

The author apparently has never been the parent or guardian of a blind child. Our experience, as well as that of our friends with children who are blind, is that services for these children in the educational setting are minimal at best.

As the parent of a blind student in the elementary setting, we have spent hundreds of hours advocating for our child, who has less than 10 percent of his vision. As a result of our tireless advocacy for his basic educational needs, we have been called educational obstructionists and been told that we are trying to make our child blind. We have spent many hours in meetings trying to negotiate and bargain for services that are rightly due to our blind son under a fair and appropriate public education.

Please understand that I am not saying that all teachers of the blind and visually impaired do not care. What I am saying is that the services provided are marked with the sweat and tears of parents and their blind children.

LISA MOON, APPLE VALLEY