You won't get any argument from me regarding the use of 9/11 in political ads. It is the most significant thing that has happened in this country in the past 25 years. The Republicans were in office and their record on handling the crisis is theirs to bear as torch or cross. They should not; however, cry foul when people question them for using the images and bringing attention to a painful event. Because, it is also the right of the victims families of 9/11, the firefighters, and the opposing party to question the use of 9/11 for political purposes. If people are offended they are allowed their voice. America has never sounded in one voice and I hope it always stays that way. To suggest anything else is to suggest that dissent is improper, which it is not. Dissent is the backbone of America. Put simply, the world is a very complex place today and differing view points are absolutely necessary as we forge our way forward into the future.
Side note: I would take issue with the use of the Olympics for political purposes as it was expressly agreed that the Olympics would never be used for political purposes. International agreements cannot really be enforced outside of the good will of the signatories so maybe that agreement doesn't mean very much. However, it did feel wrong to me. But I believe I may be in the minority on this one, as I feel a significant amount of reverence for the Olympics as a symbol that nations can compete and espouse nationalism without resorting to blood shed. Maybe, I am a bit of a romantic after all.
2 comments:
Of course, there was also supposed to be a general truce during the Olympics. How many Israelies were killed in terrorist attacks during the Olympics? How many Iraqis and U.S. soldiers were killed by insurgents during the Olympics? As the saying goes, you've got to give a little to get a little.
As far as bloodless nationalism during the Olympics goes:
Berlin
Berlin
Berlin
Munich
Munich
Munich
Also, the "America is built on Dissent" argument is weak. Why should we care about dissent qua dissent, other than not censoring every idiot who has an opinion? Criticism of the Republicans for supposedly exploiting 9-11 is a false opinion, and I merely wanted to point that out, for the edification of our readers. I didn't punch that guy in the mouth, I didn't call the cops to haul him to jail, I let him have his say. Good for him. He's still wrong, whether he has a soverign right to voice his dissent or not.
Let me put this another way:
In so far as people have a right to question the use and abuse of 9/11 images by the Republican party, those of us who support the Republican party have a right to question the questioners. If he wanted to say I was wrong, great. But I have the equal right to cry foul and say he was wrong to say I was wrong.
False opinions do not add anything to the national debate simply by the fact that they are clocked in the robe of dissent.
Do you follow?
Post a Comment