Don't know whether you heard about this but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troups at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio,Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers that have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the States, especially burn victims.

They have buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the hospital.

BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base but as you can imagine, they are almost completely filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot.

The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.

The question I have is why does Alec Baldwin, Modonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America crap and this doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the base newspaper in San Antonio

That is very cool. The reason it is not frontpage is that it won't sell papers. Controversy sells.

I gained alot of respect for Mr. Washington.

Never knew of this story until you posted it! Thank you. Would suspect this is the way it goes with the press, and what makes news, and sells papers. Must admit do buy papers with stories of the celebrities on the front page, especially of those you noted-these prove excellent for my aviary, and the birds have learned to spot bomb-good for the floor as well! Thanks again-nice story. Df

While I have great respect for what Denzel and family are doing,
I question your ascertion that what Baldwin, Madonna, Penn are doing is "anti-american".
to express your beliefs, and speak againist the government, if you believe they are wrong (and support them if you believe they are right), is in fact the most "american" anyone can be.

Perhaps because Mr. Washington didn't call a press conference to tell about what he was doing, whereas others do?

Kinda like you don't hear about how Bruce Springsteen gave the widow of his road rigger enough money so she doesn't have to work or worry about putting her kids through college, and how you don't hear how he and Shania Twain both donate their extra catering food to local food banks.

Maybe he didn't find it something he needed brought to the attention of the rest of the world? My mom taught me that the best reward for doing something nice is not public recognition, but the satisfaction in doing the right thing.

Or maybe the national press wasn't there to cover his visit, so only the local paper carried anything about it?

Or...I could just be talking out my a$$.

At any rate, it's nice that he can afford to do that, and nice that he did so. Equally nice is that you've shared it with us, so that we all know now, too.

I do have great respect for you opinion, but did you actually listen to them at their anti-war ralleys? They had nothing better to do than bash the military and the administration. Nothing positive whatsoever. These people have nothing to say but what is on their agenda. Screw the troops, to hell with 9/11, they all live in $3Mil+ houses and can care less for the country. They can kiss my veteran ass!

I too am impressed with Mr. Washington. And all people that help others, especially those that really can't afford it. And I too wish it was published more often when these good deeds are done, it encourages others to do good as well.

It is their American right to be "Anti-American", I believe that people in the public eye have a responsibility to use caution in there speeches.

Ace, Ace, Ace... a quick check on Snopes would've gotten the rest of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/denzel.asp

He was there... and he did make a donation. But he did not pay for an entire building.

And 'the other day' was sometime in 1988.

It's cool he did what he did... and I'm not trying to take anything away from that. But you should know better Dude.

I agree with the freedom of speech and all that too, but it gets to the point of getting old hearing the same crap from the same people.

If they are so unhappy with things here, they also have the right to get the fu** out. I hear that France will take them with open arms.

'Tis a two-way street.

I've heard them, and I happen to agree with their views on the current administration.
For them to blame the military, particularly the troops (who are just doing their job) is wrong.
The constatution doesn't say you must be smart to express your views just that you may.
I agree their message would be more convincing, if their personal sacrifice was more evident.

And they also have the right to stay and disagree. Reaching unison does not mean "get rid of people who have another opinon", at least not in my dictionary.

I mean, would you have liked the French Opposition to shut up and leave France when it was under Vichy reign? D-Day and stuff would have been a lot more difficult if not impossible, without people staying there and practising their right to freedom.

Yeah, I know, this is an exaggerration, but you can't just shut up disagree-ers, it's not a solution to the problem just a way to sweep it under the carpet.

Just my €0.02...

Ahh, the expressive liberal point of view. They all talk a great talk, but not a one of them has walked the walk....no surprise here. Talk is cheap, how many of these Hollywood heros would back up their liberal ideas with their life????

kalmark ... Paradoxical, there are many today turning up daisies to keep these freedoms of speech alive and well. Clearly, support is given in many ways, and being on the front line is not all of them-much is contributed by those that serve at home in a national effort as well.

Unfortunately, for those that put it all on the line, and did not make it, (quite sure that many would have preferred to still be around) i.e., those that the made the final sacrifice more than paid the bill for others in terms of insuring these First Amendment rights. Almost inconceivable, the on going contradiction that many today would use these first Amendment rights, i.e., in order to protest the actions of those that continue to insure these very freedoms today!

Interestingly, and perhaps a fundamental weakness, i.e., many may indeed join those that died insuring these very freedoms-if their itinerary becomes successful! People do have the right to disagree and should! Yet, another viable solution (it would seem) should be proposed, or supported for a vote by the people or their representatives-do not see very many ideas hitting the table all at one time lately-do hear a lot of moaning and groaning!

Freedom of speech is a basic right guaranteed by our constitution an as such gives all of us the ability to speak their mind. I object when a person uses their fame or position to convey that opinion but fame in its self can be a double edged sword. Does anybody remember Hanoi Jane Fonda? her fraterniization with north Vietnam all but ruined her career in the movies.

I personally just don't watch Baldwin,Penn and Madonna movies any more but thats just me.

pappysbro ... Do remember Hanoi Jane Fonda-would suggest that she was incredibly young and stupid-but stupid people, do need to be held responsible for their positions and actions-stupid or not-that's part of a Democracy as well! Agree with your position, and assure you that many others do not watch, or support those you named! In the old days it was called boycotting! Df.

Probably about the same proportion of anyone else in a high-profile job. You know....like US Senators and Congressmen, or their children.

Are you saying that because someone has not offered their life for their country, they are not entitled to freedom of speech? There are a whole lot of people, some on this board, who would have to shut up then, from BOTH sides.

I think that is a very good reason that they should at least support the people who are willing to do so.

I have no problems with speaking out against the policies and the politicians, but the soldiers deserve everyone's support. Whether you agree with what they are doing or not. You don't have to like the policy, but don't kill the messenger...they are just doing their job.

Also, no matter what the cause...war is hell.

Of course war is hell. If it was pleasant, there would be no reason for debate.

Your ealier post made it sound as if you thought only those who had offered their lives for their country should be allowed to speak out against it. Thank you for clarifying.

You are correct...soldiers are doing the job they signed on to do, they don't make the policies. But since the dawn of time, people have equated the military (not just in our country) with the government they serve under. After all, our President is the Commander in Chief of the military, so they tend to fall under the same umbrella. The fact is, people tend to stereotype, and lump people into one big group whether they deserve it or not. Thus some liberals blame the military for what the President is doing, and some conservatives blame all liberals for what the ones on TV are doing.

As I said above, it's a two-way street.

I'm thinking that more and more, with all the idiots out there abusing it, Freedom of Speech should be a privilege, and not a right. But, it's one of those things that is guaranteed by our laws. And with common sense being less and less common these days, you'll have that.

Personally, I find it insulting as someone who has served our country, to offer support for those who choose speak out against issues they know nothing about. For instance - those people who have chosen to not serve their country (in whatever capacity) speaking out against the military or government and demanding to have more say over how it's run. My reply - STFU... you have no idea what it's all about (or haven't earned the right in my eyes), so keep it to yourself. I certainly don't know 2 sh!ts about how an organized union runs (for instance) so you can damn sure bet that I won't be insisting it change its policies to conform with my way of thinking. In fact, I tend to only get publicaly rialed about things I have personal experience or first-hand knowledge of... and that should be a benchmark in which people gauge their use of freedom of speech rights against. But they don't.

Sorry if that seems a little narrow-minded, but I know for a fact that I didn't spend my time in the military defending the right for some ignorant jerk to spit in my face quoting freedom of speech as his basis for doing so. I don't know how the Vietnam Vets coped with all of that back in the 70s - I know I'd have broken some teeth if faced with the same situation.

So yeah - I guess you could say that I believe some of our 'rights' should have to be earned before they're abused.

I've never served in the military, but I come from a family who did, and who still does, as well as having dated and/or been engaged to several men who have/do.

Any "spouting off" from me on just about any subject is 95% grounded in personal experience.

We know you are just a left wing zeolot Beth. (>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>runs) Hehe, J/K. You always bring good stuff to the table.

What I was referring to is all the people from the Vietnam era who were 'protesting' the war and directing their anger at the soldiers - not realizing for one minute the simple truths behind them being there: 1. They were following orders and doing their job as assigned by the government, 2. They were engaged in a type of warfare they weren't adequately trained for, 3. Thanks to the media, the isolated incidents of dishonor were reported in favor of the typical incidents that were honorable - to push their anti-war agenda.

Not much has changed in 30 years.

Look at how things were during WWI and WWII - example: "Loose lips sink ships." Ya know - people back then had a much keener sense of reponsibility for the greater good. Sure, most things didn't get reported for many reasons - technology and operational security being the foremost. But moreover, a much stronger sense of patriotism and loyalty, rather than selfishness and self-righteousness. The people back then knew that in order for the Allies to prevail, certain things had to take a back seat. Not so anymore - people not only want their cake and eat it too, they demand it... then hide behind loopholes in the laws.

What's worse is that unfortunately, people have largely forgotten how to think before they speak. And when those people begin threatening national security, their 'rights' of Freedom of Speech should be revoked. My feelings on this are simple - I refuse to allow my life to be placed at risk because someone else feels the need to spout off some nugget of information or fabrication because of his own personal agenda.

For instance, look at how much damage the fabrications of the GITMO/Quran scandal caused - the entire world's furvor for the USA has been stoked and fueled thanks to someone's agenda of trying to make Bush look even worse for the whole action of the Iraq war. Every time something like that happens, the odds of it coming to a peacable end any time soon dwindle. Not to mention the new danger all American citizens must now face as they travel abroad. See what unregulated Freedom of Speech has gotten us? And this is only a single example of the damage it can cause.

Every time someone spouts off with out knowledge, tact, or regard for the truth, someone's going to suffer. And if unregulated Freedom of Speech is going to continue to threaten national security and make the world a more dangerous place, then yeah - I say trim it back a little. Censorship is not always a bad thing when used properly - however, I understand and agree that it will get out of hand as corruption clamps down the gray areas of Freedom of Speech, but until people start thinking about what kind of damage they are causing before they speak, we have very few options.

That's what I mean behind 'Freedom of Speech' needing an overhaul.

But still, you can't honestly tell me that an American citizen burning an American flag 'in protest,' serves any cause other than to damage the USA depending on who the audience is. And that, my friends, is what people used to be hanged for - it's called 'treason.'

Nice article Mister 4x4! Support your last paragraph-excellent analysis! But, would do the slam as an alternative for the majority under the passage of a constitutional amendment that makes the consequences of the person's actions very clear. That is, not ending in punctuating a wall with them slowing down the bullets. Except, if their actions demonstrate that they in effect killed, in the pursuit of their cause."Loose lips do sink ships" and acts of sabotage by indicating the ease that some action may occur verbally does not help. This does aid the enemy-terrorist in this case. This was called during my time-'giving aid and comfort to the enemy'.

Since congress has expressed their views, i.e., first amendment flag issue-please see current status of this action too. It is up to the states to decide the severity of the punishments, i.e., unless these actions fall under the anti-terrorist act (statutes). Then it becomes a federal matter. Hopefully, each state will responsibly consider their sons and daughters in the service of their country, and the sacrifices they make when dealing with these individuals.

Good gods, DF! Punctuation, man! Separation of thoughts into sentences!! That first paragraph was MURDER to read! And, quite frankly, I'm still not sure what you were getting at. More coffee...

Holy Cow - you ain't kiddin'. Thanks for the words of confidence, but yeah - punctuate, my man.

Thanks-done!