Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (196297)	10/26/2001 1:01:42 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769670

Ditto. If it wasn't Schippers talking about this, I'd dismiss it out of hand. I'm not ruling out the possibility, just saying I'd have to see some pretty convincing proof....

To: jlallen who wrote (196297)	10/26/2001 1:48:09 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

JLA, This one is for you. Is it disloyal to dissent? Even in times of war, opposing views should be heard By Dan Fisher MSNBC Oct. 25 — Is dissent in danger of becoming yet another victim of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and their aftermath? The evidence so far is ambiguous, I’d argue. But the impact of the terror attacks — and the importance of the democratic principle at stake — are both of a magnitude for the issue to merit concern. THE NEWS MEDIA are naturally a primary focus of many who see the expression of dissenting opinion concerning the attacks or the U.S. response as at best hopelessly naive — and treasonous at worst. It is the role of the news media to cover protest demonstrations and give voice through its editorial or opinion sections to non-mainstream views. Among the dissenting voices being heard these days are Lewis Lapham, whose scathing essay on the Bush Admininstration’s response to the terror attacks appears in the current edition of Harper’s magazine. And syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, always a sharp-tongued critic of the president, has not tempered her criticism in the wake of Sept. 11. At MSNBC.com, an Opinions section piece by the novelist Arundhati Roy, "Insult and injury in Afghanistan: America’s ill-advised war against terror,” generated a flood of angry e-mail. Most of the critics confined themselves to criticism of Roy’s arguments, but others went well beyond. One, for example, referred to her as “traitorous;” another accused MSNBC.com of “anti-Americanism” for even publishing her article. (In fact, Roy is an Indian citizen so her comments can’t really be described accurately as “traitorous” to the United States.) BACKLASH CONCERNS There are countries in which it is consistent — even required — for citizens to wrap themselves in the national flag while simultaneously condemning dissent as traitorous. But not in the United States. The Newspaper Guild Sector of the Communications Workers of America was concerned enough about possible backlash against dissenters that it created a new section on its Web site last month called "Patriotism’s 2-Edged Sword.” It says the Guild “...has long championed the unique role of a free press in a democracy. That role includes the right, obligation and necessity of free inquiry, of the uncensored exchange of news and information, and of vigorous debate and the exchange of conflicting views and opinions — the very essence of democratic self-governance. The importance of this role does not diminish in times of national crisis,” it adds. “Indeed, because such crises may result in the expenditure of huge sums of money, national effort and human lives, it becomes even more critical that those who speak with a different voice be heard.” A few journalists have been punished by their organizations for expressing unpopular views — actions the Guild calls “un-American.” It adds that such moves threaten “to transform us into precisely the kind of zealots whose intolerance for other values and ways of life resulted in the deaths of more than 6,000 people on Sept. 11.” THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD On the other side of the ledger, the Pew Center for the People and the Press, an independent opinion research group, reported earlier this month that while Americans are “overwhelmingly supportive of the use of military force” in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, “they also strongly favor the right of dissenting voices to be heard.” The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates, using a nationwide sample of 1,001 adults aged 18 or over during the period Oct. 1-3. “About seven-in-ten (71 percent) say that Americans who oppose military action should be allowed to carry out peaceful protests, and 75 percent say that those who think U.S. policies were to blame for the attacks should be allowed to express their views in the media.” More than a third (35 percent) said there has been too little discussion of methods to stop terrorism other than military force. Pew notes that in addition to sampling error, question wording and other difficulties can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls. Also, the poll took place before official U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7. It will be interesting to see if subsequent Pew polls show a change. CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM It makes sense for many of us, I think, that dissent is met with a more critical eye following attacks on our own soil, and when the American military is in harm’s way seeking to root out the terrorists responsible. I know I’m a lot more interested in dissent that offers alternative courses of action than I am in that which simply condemns the current policy. But while criticizing a dissenting opinion for a lack of perspective, ignorance, factual error, bad timing or any number of other faults may be an appropriate response, accusations of treason or anti-Americanism are not. In a famous 1954 challenge to McCarthyism, the late Edward R. Murrow cautioned on his “See It Now” radio program: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Acknowledging dissent - even welcoming it — is not about political correctness or moral equivalency. In “The Arrogance of Power,” the late Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright wrote: “We must dare to think ‘unthinkable’ thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world. We must learn to welcome and not to fear the voices of dissent. We must dare to think about ‘unthinkable things’ because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.” INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY Those objecting to dissent in the current crisis often paraphrase President George W. Bush when he said soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that other nations will have to decide whether they are with the United States or against it in the battle against terrorism. There was no middle ground, he said then. But the Administration has since softened that message, acknowledging that different countries are comfortable with different levels and types of support, and expressing gratitude for all of it. There are countries in which it is consistent — even required — for citizens to wrap themselves in the national flag while simultaneously condemning dissent as traitorous. In the United States, which stands on a foundation of individual liberty, it’s hypocritical.