When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Bush to bin Laden [Bush should have said] "You, bin Laden, are nothing but a hijacker — a hijacker of Islam, a hijacker of other people's technology, a hijacker of a vast Arab nation's anger at its own regimes. But you have no vision and no plan for your people." - Thomas Friedman, NY Times
Writer wishes Bush had answered bin Laden instead of censoring him.
I agree; this would have been an example of the highest and best use of free speech. I have often told mouthy people on usenet to watch their language, or that what they said is insulting to women, blacks, etc. They always respond with "What, don't you believe in free speech!? - are you trying to censor me???" and think that will shut me up. It never does. I say "I do believe in free speech and am exercising it right now!"
On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument to be made for not playing hate speech in full, but instead to report that it occurred, with a summary of the content. Playing it in full tends to validate it. TV stations don't run hateful KKK speeches in full. In fact about the only speech played in full is the President's State of the Union address. So, although bin Laden's doings are of considerable interest, the tv stations need not validate his views.
Palema
5:54 AM
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|