Saturday, August 20, 2005
Counterpoint
In Nicaragua, lately, there have been many attacks in the media and by other politicians against the president, Enrique Bolaños. There were marches in the streets that turned violent including burning out buses. In response, some people decided to show their steadfast, but silent support of the president by putting a small nicaraguan flag on the window of their cars. Anyone who doesn't support the president was so outraged that they went and started putting up political party flags on their window just to show that they could make a statement, too. It all seems rather childish. And then I read this article.
Do we all have to be so childish? I mean, as one can read in my blog, I am not in support of the Sheehan lady, her demands, or her cause. That said, could people be opposed to her with a little more tact? Calling out into debate? Please. That is OBVIOUSLY not what she is about. And what does a debate resolve anyway? Whether or not we should be there in the first place? Whether or not we should still be there? When you use "should," you know you're getting into opinion and opinion cannot be debated. It's just a chance for everyone to scream and holler and show which side yells the loudest. And I think we all know which side would yell loudest were a debate to take place anywhere in the state of Texas, much less up the road from Bush's ranch. There is no need to protest the protest. I understand that it's the same thing that happened in the sixties that people protested so much and nothing ever got done and then the populace just got annoyed with them (which is why the nation-wide response to the Kent State shootings was only moderately shocked). And as much as I don't agree, I do think that makes it even more my responsibility to listen to a protestor with an open mind. Maybe I have missed something, after all. Protesting in general gets on my nerves (as it usually seems to be about "my rights" in a sue-happy time period), but to respond to protesting by protesting oneself just shows our natural condition of wanting to be discontent with something and lameness at not being creative enough to do so in a way that is meaningful.
For example, the way that the father of a dead soldier removed the cross bearing his son's name from the protest against the war. Doesn't he have a right to do so? Don't the protestor's have a right to name every america's son whose life was taken in a war they believe we shouldn't be in? I'm mostly just impressed by the father's actions (assuming he wasn't a jerk when he did it), even if he came across a little war-happy in his one quote in this article.
I don't even mean that we should agree to disagree. This is an important issue. I just think maybe we can be a little more tactful in trying to get the nation's attention and that may even help people understand the other point of view, or even change their own. I'm done.
EDIT: Okay, so I'm not done. I found this great quote by Ari Fleischer that I agree with. It mostly sums up my point.
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush's focus on the long term rather than the immediate is "part of what, to his supporters, is steadfastness and, to his critics, is stubbornness."
"If you allow those who are the most vocal and most antagonistic to get a meeting with the president for fear that publicity will hurt you if you don't, you're creating incentives for your critics to become even more antagonistic and more vocal," Fleischer said. "Then, you're forever stuck in: Will you or won't you meet? You'll no longer lead. You'll just wrestle with meetings."
(above is quoted from Washington Post article found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001046.html)
Do we all have to be so childish? I mean, as one can read in my blog, I am not in support of the Sheehan lady, her demands, or her cause. That said, could people be opposed to her with a little more tact? Calling out into debate? Please. That is OBVIOUSLY not what she is about. And what does a debate resolve anyway? Whether or not we should be there in the first place? Whether or not we should still be there? When you use "should," you know you're getting into opinion and opinion cannot be debated. It's just a chance for everyone to scream and holler and show which side yells the loudest. And I think we all know which side would yell loudest were a debate to take place anywhere in the state of Texas, much less up the road from Bush's ranch. There is no need to protest the protest. I understand that it's the same thing that happened in the sixties that people protested so much and nothing ever got done and then the populace just got annoyed with them (which is why the nation-wide response to the Kent State shootings was only moderately shocked). And as much as I don't agree, I do think that makes it even more my responsibility to listen to a protestor with an open mind. Maybe I have missed something, after all. Protesting in general gets on my nerves (as it usually seems to be about "my rights" in a sue-happy time period), but to respond to protesting by protesting oneself just shows our natural condition of wanting to be discontent with something and lameness at not being creative enough to do so in a way that is meaningful.
For example, the way that the father of a dead soldier removed the cross bearing his son's name from the protest against the war. Doesn't he have a right to do so? Don't the protestor's have a right to name every america's son whose life was taken in a war they believe we shouldn't be in? I'm mostly just impressed by the father's actions (assuming he wasn't a jerk when he did it), even if he came across a little war-happy in his one quote in this article.
I don't even mean that we should agree to disagree. This is an important issue. I just think maybe we can be a little more tactful in trying to get the nation's attention and that may even help people understand the other point of view, or even change their own. I'm done.
EDIT: Okay, so I'm not done. I found this great quote by Ari Fleischer that I agree with. It mostly sums up my point.
Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush's focus on the long term rather than the immediate is "part of what, to his supporters, is steadfastness and, to his critics, is stubbornness."
"If you allow those who are the most vocal and most antagonistic to get a meeting with the president for fear that publicity will hurt you if you don't, you're creating incentives for your critics to become even more antagonistic and more vocal," Fleischer said. "Then, you're forever stuck in: Will you or won't you meet? You'll no longer lead. You'll just wrestle with meetings."
(above is quoted from Washington Post article found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001046.html)
# posted by Adam @ 7:22 PM 
