COMMENTARY

You can’t argue with ignorance

Sean Oakley

In response to my past columns, I have been called a “warmonger,” “historically inept,” basically a “racist” and “a sheep blinded by the propaganda of mainstream media.”

And of course, I’m the one who has been called irrational.

I have cited every statistic or fact, and I have tried tediously to support everything I say and to research all of my opinions on the background to this issue.

My opponents rarely cite facts, but choose to rant about idealistic thoughts that are not supported, not researched and basically so far out in left field that most of us cannot comprehend being that separated from reality.

As far as “sheep” go, I have researched my opinion. I’m not the one simply jumping on the anti-war bandwagon because there is nothing else to do or because the horrible American government will not let me smoke pot on the street corner.

My colleague, Mr. Kavlock, in an Oct. 30 commentary brought the plight of slavery and American Indians into the discussion, as if they had anything to do with terrorism. Several letters-to-the-editor published recently attacked my rhetoric, but had no courage to attack my opinion or facts. Yes, President George W. Bush accidentally used the word “crusade.” Get over it.

See, this is what scares me. Anti-war protestors never offer their own solution, and they do not have any answers as to how to stop this terror. They use Dr. Martin Luther King’s quote about spiraling violence, but they completely take it out of context.

Using that quote, how do you stop a Hitler? How do you stop hatred that is backed by nothing else other than hatred? We acknowledge the existence of hate crimes, but anti-war protestors cannot believe that Sept.11 spurred from hate.

No, it must have spurred from tyrannical American foreign policy.

Paul Hollander of The Washington Post wrote a column in October. He worded it best:

“At the core of these attitudes is anti-Americanism, which I define as a historically specific expression of a universal scapegoating impulse, a type of bias similar to racism, sexism or anti-Semitism, and a largely irrational, often visceral aversion to the United States and its government.”

Anti-Americanism is very alive in this town. My roommate saw an inscription on the door of a Whitener bathroom stall. It read, “F- the USA. The USA deserves to burn.”

Still, people want to hide behind the First Amendment. Still critics call me a tyrant for inviting people who do not like it here to get out. Still, the protestors would like to dodge the truth.

The truth, you ask?

As we speak, 4,000 rotting carcasses are festering
under tons of debris at Ground Zero in New York. Reports reveal some 15,000 children in the Tri-State area (New York, New Jersey and Connecticut) lost a parent in the Sept. 11 attacks.

As we argue over foreign policy, New York firefighters protested at Ground Zero because of an announcement that recovery operations were going to be scaled down.

Why was Richard Gere booed off stage a few weeks ago after making the now popular, “Let’s understand why it happened,” speeches? Not because the masses were sheep but because the concert was in New York and though our lives in Boone seem unaffected, New Yorkers still smell the ash from death and still see the smokestacks.

I am no warmonger. Though I have tried to clarify the ludicrous statements made by anti-war protestors regarding foreign policy, that isn’t the issue.

You can’t argue with ignorance. Ignorance, mixed with selfishness and cowardice, are the roots of the anti-war movement.

Bin Laden has said he wants to kill all American infidels.

Bin Laden has targeted Americans as the enemy.
But still anti-war protestors would like to sympathize with him.

I am no warmonger, but I do understand history. (No, many of you don’t). History has shown us that swift action lowers the casualties in the long run. If you don’t believe me, then study the rise of the Nazi party in 1930s Germany.

If you do not believe bin Laden’s a similar threat, watch the BBC’s “Under the Veil.” (Yes it aired on CNN, but a BBC reporter created it.)

As you are watching it, as you watch a woman being shot in the head, as you watch a Taliban official say the United Nations should build them a place for executions so they can return to playing soccer in the stadium the United Nations built for them, remember this is the type of government bin Laden wants all around the world.

He has often been singled out as the behind-the-scenes-leader of the Taliban.

You can cry about American foreign policies (which you don’t understand and refuse to attribute to the realistic Cold War atmosphere in which they were implemented), use this horrible attack as an excuse to further your agendas (like the Black Panthers recently did, or the recent anti-war group that cited sustainable development as a solution to the Middle East crisis), or you can support the country that gives you freedom, support the soldiers that are giving their lives for your freedom and for once in your life not be a sheep.

Or would the anti-war protestors prefer we just sit here, console the innocent terrorists and their horrible plight, hold lectures on how to hold each other’s hands while singing “We are the World,” and watch as city after American city is first plagued by terror and then reduced to rubble. These terrorists are just as dangerous as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

Of course, if you live your life in la-la land you don’t understand a word I’m saying.

As Jack Newfield, a former Vietnam protestor, recently said in a letter to Playboy magazine, “We had a pure, contagious idealism from 1960 till 1967, when the frustrations of the Vietnam War and a misreading of the ghetto riots diverted out movement in the direction of violence, nihilism and an invincibly stupid anti-Americanism. “

I respect First Amendment rights. I respect differing opinions. But I don’t respect anti-Americanism.

Even dogs understand that you don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

Even dogs understand that.

COMMENTARY

‘Loyal opposition’ is
hardly Un-American

David Forbes

“Sir, I disagree with everything you say, and will defend to the death your right to say it”
-Voltaire

We have seen scattered traces of protestors over the past month and a half, and I have a feeling we will see many more as the days wear on. This is not a time of low emotion. Already the protestors have been saddled with epithets too countless to name here; “cowardly traitors” is one of the milder ones I’ve heard, some of the others are not printable.

I, for one, disagree with most of what they say. I believe their conception of world politics is naive and their comparisons of this war to Vietnam misguided. I think their slogans hold far more rhetoric than reason, and some of these groups and individuals are at times almost insufferably self-righteous.

But they are not cowards nor are they traitors.

I have yet to see any of these protest groups cheer for the terrorists behind the attacks or give them aid.
I may disagree with their particular cause, but for all their supposed cowardice they have held to their beliefs in the face of massive criticism, and so far their protests have been mostly both peaceful and legal.

For every war America has been involved in, right or wrong, from 1812 to the 1960s, there have always been peace movements. They have varied in size and organization, but for the most part they have been composed of perfectly loyal Americans who simply disagreed, peacefully, with what their government was doing.

“Loyal opposition” is a necessary element in any democracy and hardly Un-American.

Legislation recently passed by Congress makes the definition of “terrorist” a good deal wider, and in recent days, I have heard measures for increased security advocated that were almost totalitarian—random face scanning of crowds, a national ID card, the list goes on and on.

I have also heard, again and again, the same rationale for these increased measures—“if you aren’t guilty you have nothing to hide.” Yet that logic places everyone under suspicion and creates a society and a government based on fear rather than respect.

Unity and patriotism does not, and should not, mean that everyone is required to think the same.

Perhaps these are mostly things that will not come to pass, and this country will be able to balance increased security with civil liberties, but it is certainly something to be wary of.

For if we start to view every dissident as the enemy, every freedom as expendable, then the war is over, and the terrorists have already won.

Our Perspective ...

Campus issues first

With the fall semester now past its halfway point, the Student Government Association (SGA) Senate recently tackled its first major piece of legislation last week when the body approved a resolution of support calling for the severing of Appalachian State University athletic ties to Liberty University.

The senate-passed bill now moves onto the desk of SGA President Xan Harrington. The legislation could remain in Harrington’s hands for up to 10 days, at which time the president must either veto or sign the legislation.

No matter which path Harrington chooses, the issue did garner the interest of many. Rarely do we see an issue that draws a significant amount of attention and debate from such a large portion of the student body.

We feel the widespread debate spawned by any major campus-related issue is an encouraging sign at an institution where apathy has become as commonplace as cold winds and blowing snow.

By tackling an issue as complex as slashing ties with Liberty due to inflammatory remarks made by its chancellor following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., the SGA senate managed to accomplish this near-monumental feat.

While we applaud the senate for sparking debate among the student body, we do caution the respective members of the body to give ample attention to important campus issues despite the temptation of focus on issues of national scope.

This temptation was magnified following the horrific terrorist attacks that rocked the foundation of this nation.

While we support cutting athletic ties with Liberty, we stress the need for the senate to serve its role as an avenue for student input on crucial campus issues that directly affect a significant number of students.

Were SGA senators to approach legislation dealing with campus issues with the same passion as bills they author with national implications, perhaps the body could become a truly influential voice on the Appalachian State campus.

Upon analysis of non-Liberty University work completed by the body to date, we do not see this incarnation of the senate to be such a force at this time.

Instead, we see a chamber more interested in where SGA cabinet members purchase articles of clothing.

Over the remainder of the academic year, the senate will mold its own legacy. We challenge the body to stay in touch with its constituency and craft meaningful legislation that truly mirrors the concerns of the Appalachian State student body.

With the answer to that fundamental question a clear ‘yes,’ we call on the Appalachian student body to become more aware of the actions taken and legislation written, debated and voted on by the SGA senate.

If student-constituents do not hold their respective senator accountable and challenge each member to be an active part of the body, a handful of skillful senators may indeed commandeer the legislative agenda with the rest of the members simply needing to show up each Tuesday evening to cast their votes.