The talk show guys on the Bill O'Reilly show say that we all have the right to the freedom of speech, but some of us are irresponsible when we exert that right. Therefore, I must ask, when is free speech irresponsible? According to these Fox News guys, when you say negative things about a war, during the war. Why? Because our troop's morale will be undermined. Does that mean that our fighting men and women aren't mature enough to deal with different viewpoints on the war?

How about this answer? According to Newt Gingrich, "Our enemies are listening." Does that mean that our enemies listen more efficiently to negative viewpoints about the war than they do to positive ones? Or that our enemies are influenced more by some less known person than they are by the president of the United States? Or does it mean that a person has a right to speak, but not to be heard.

According to these Fox News pundits, only voices supporting the war have a right to be heard. But those who speak out against the war are "lowlife imbecile," so says a retired military officer on a Bill O'Reilly program. I'm highly tempted to say, "Sir, it takes one to know one."

As noted before, total unanimity of thought and opinion is not possible among a thoughtful and democratic people. To insist on such is not only imbecilic, but contrary to the American Constitution. Today, many Americans are proving it by continuing to voice dissent to the Iraq war.

Are some speaking harsh and critical words against the war and the Bush administration. Of course, we are! Because we feel strongly about our troops dying in this senseless, nondefensive conflict, with little or no hope of a victorious outcome. And we will continue to speak out. It's not only our right to free speech, but also what we feel is our moral obligation. I believe that history will prove us responsible.

History has already proven that some opinions are irresponsible. Isn't it a shame that such proof has and will take so long to do so?

We are beginning to see which countries have the ability to learn from history. They will withdraw their armies soon and leave the slow learners to fight a senseless conflict among those who have fought each other for centuries.

It may be that the reason for their endless conflict is that there are so few "over there" who are responsible enough to risk irresponsible speech. Could it be that, sometimes, irresponsible speech is the responsible thing to do. Over there, when it comes to the speaker's life, responsible speech may become irresponsible. I just hope that, over here, either responsible or irresponsible speech will remain in the arena of free speech.

I'm glad that, if someone were to advise you to boycott my speech, it wouldn't amount to much. However, it might be the responsible thing you to do, since it may be published in the Miller County Liberal and the Thomasville Times-Enterprise, where free speech is honored. And their readers are wise enough to know which category, "responsible" or "irresponsible," my writing should be placed.