Blackburn: Times editor was wrong
For nearly 250 years, robust, respectful, bipartisan debate has anchored our nation’s political process, empowering Americans to settle differences through deliberation, not violence.
With his spirited visits to campuses all across the country, Charlie Kirk embodied the best of this tradition. Yet in the aftermath of his tragic death, some — including educators, a Nashville 911 operator and a Secret Service agent — have openly celebrated his assassination. Where appropriate, I have called for these people to lose their positions.
In his editorial, Chattanooga Times opinion page Editor Ben Sessoms claims that I have called for the “firing of anyone criticizing Kirk.” That is false. He failed to mention what these individuals actually said, dismissing the details as irrelevant. But the details matter. Consider their words:
“Looks like ol’ Charlie spoke his fate into existence. Hate begets hate. ZERO sympathy.”
“On Charlie Kirk: Thoughts & Prayers. Oh, AND Kharma is a beautiful b——.”
“The world is better off without him in it. Even those who are claiming to be sad for his wife and kids … like, his kids are better off living in a world without a disgusting psychopath like him.”
These individuals are openly celebrating violence against people with whom they disagree. That should disqualify them from any position where they are responsible for someone else’s safety — whether that be students in the classroom, callers on an emergency line or public officials in need of protection.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn
Free Press conclusion ‘a false equivalency’
A Free Press editorial in the Sept. 21 edition of the CTFP presented much good information about attempts to remove history from museums and national parks. Unfortunately, it also presented a false equivalency by describing the removal of Confederate monument statuary as an attempted erasure of history.
The Trump administration is attempting to remove historical documentation, be they pictures, placards or museum descriptions, from our public museums and parks. This is a blatant attempt to hide some of the “warts” that are a part of our national heritage. Our museums and national parks are the ultimate appropriate locations for providing factual information to the public who visit those facilities. They should present the good and the bad of our history, so that people can be aware of the reality of who we have been, and who we strive to be.
Statuary monuments celebrate persons, or events as glorious contributions to our nation. They do not present historical fact in attempt to educate the populace regarding events of our history. In the case of Confederate statuary monuments, they were erected mostly in the 20th century by various Lost Cause groups to glorify the leadership of the Confederacy. The Confederacy brought insurrection designed to overthrow our federal system of government to maintain an institution of slavery within the Confederacy. This last statement is verified when one reads the cornerstone speech given by Alexander Stephens (vice president of the Confederacy). Removal of these monuments was not an erasure of history. The history of the Confederacy is well documented in textbooks, museums and national parks.
I found it a distinct false equivalency to equate the removal of Confederate statues with what is being done to erase history by the Trump administration.
Robert Landry