Letters to the Editor

Many world-class cities have an airport name that is instantly recognizable and readily identifies that city to the traveling public. I liken it to a "brand name" for that particular region.

In a word association quiz, I say, "Logan," and you say, "Boston."

I say, "Heathrow," and you say, "London."

JFK? New York.

De Gaulle? Paris.

O'Hare? Chicago.

Philadelphia International Airport is far too generic, and does nothing in terms of brand identification. The name places us squarely in the pack of hundreds of other blah-blah-blah international airports.

Why not give our airport some added panache, and at the same time honor our most famous citizen, someone who is instantly identified with Philadelphia? Ben Franklin.

Other than changing some signs, it would seem to be a low-cost opportunity to further distinguish our region. What do you think, Philadelphia?

The headline "Obama: End tax cuts for wealthy" (Tuesday) speaks volumes to middle- and working-class Americans. After years of inequality and abuse, shouldn't everyone, once again, pay their fair share?

Should Philadelphia's homeless be fed en masse, outside, at one of the city's most beautiful locations ("Hearing set on Phila. curb on feeding the homeless," Friday)? If the goal is succor and outreach, would not any central location suffice? What is so sacred about the Parkway location to the suburban outreach ministries? Would any of their home communities tolerate these congregations?

In a chronically broken Philadelphia, with a dwindling tax base and with more than its share of poverty, is it necessary to push this population in the face of the tourists and residents who visit the Parkway attractions and leave their money here? Why should the city not get to weigh the benefits over the liabilities?

Such thinking does not represent a cold heart or a lack of empathy. It represents pragmatic common sense. Freedom of assembly can be regulated by time, place, and manner. It should be so regulated here.

I was interested to see the responses to David Goldfield's op-ed "A deadly rush into Civil War" (July 2), correcting his transparent whitewash of the actions of Southern states in starting the Civil War.

The letter "Failing grade on Civil War" (July 6) referred to Southern "secessionists," which is a total fiction. The South did not secede from the Union, and Abraham Lincoln vigorously denied that characterization of the South because there is no such "secession" provision in the U.S. Constitution.

What the South did was mount a state-led insurrection against the Union. Shockingly, Robert E. Lee and others who had benefited from their training at West Point led what amounted to a terrorist campaign against their own government. Calling these actions "secession" only gives legitimacy to the South's specious claim.

I hope today that we avoid calling terrorists "freedom fighters," rather recognizing them for what they are: killers dressed up in lies.