|
Get your Easter, Secretaries Day and Mother's Day gifts at the Galleria! Add your comments on this week's "What is the Deal?" column at Uncle Hiram's Bulletin Board. April 20, 2003 What is the deal with Political Dissent? By Jan A. Larson There has been a lot of talk in the press in recent days, following the victory of coalition forces in Iraq, that many of those that expressed dissent toward the war are being unfairly targeted for retribution. One example was the decision by The National Baseball Hall of Fame to cancel an event to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the release of the film Bull Durham. This decision was based on the public comments of a couple of outspoken anti-war advocates, Timothy Robbins and Susan Sarandon. Others that spoke out against the war, notably people in the entertainment industry, are also being criticized. Naturally those subject to such criticism are taking exception to that criticism and are claiming that they are being unfairly persecuted for their minority viewpoints. To that I must take exception. When one has access to the public stage and takes a position that makes little, if any, logical sense, they must be prepared for the inevitable backlash. With few exceptions, some of the most outspoken anti-war advocates, including Robbins, Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo and others opposed the war not from a logical and reasoned viewpoint, but apparently from a simple anti-Republican, anti-George W. Bush, anti-American viewpoint. If George W. Bush was for it, they were against it. If President Bush had been for sunshine, some would have advocated clouds. I did not hear so much as one reasonable and logical argument from anyone in the entertainment industry why the United States should not go into Iraq and eliminate Saddam Hussein's regime. There were a lot of arguments right out of the Vietnam-era, a lot of off-the-wall arguments that had no basis in fact and plenty that were just plain stupid, e.g. the claim that the war was over oil or that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to the United States. Anti-war dissent was, for the most part, based on emotion, fear and propaganda. Very little was based on logic. The point is that there is nothing wrong with dissent or with having a dissenting opinion if it is reasoned dissent. The First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech. As was readily apparent in the past few weeks, the First Amendment also grants the right to speak foolishly. I am certainly not advocating the silencing of anyone that voices an "unpopular" opinion. Without the right to voice a minority viewpoint, this country might look a lot like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We must never allow dissenters to be silenced, but those that voice public dissent owe their audience a reasoned dissent or be prepared to face the music when their position has been proven to be foolish, especially those that depend on the public to buy their music, read their books or watch their movies. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
|
||||||||||||||
