The best essays write themselves. ash likes the flow of this one, which patiently explains a concept to someone who no doubt doesn’t want to know:
My dear sister in another time zone advises against responding to arguments whose merits are non-existent. Her rule of thumb is to let the foolishness speak for itself; to refute it would be simply too easy.
But she’s a better woman than I am, and when I read a letter to the editor as stunning as the one from [name withheld] of Sherman, taking the bait becomes irresistible. While I’m confident our current administration would love nothing more than a nation full of simplistic authoritarians (“my country, right or wrong”) such as Mr. [name withheld], the reality is many of us cherish – and exercise – our freedom to question, criticize, and challenge our leaders.
In fact, it is this privilege to speak freely - without fear of repercussion - that not only distinguishes our nation from repressive societies, but is arguably the single greatest contributing factor to declaring our country the greatest on earth. Assuming that Mr. [name withheld] shares this sentiment, admonishing a citizen (that would be Chris Britt) for expressing an opinion in comic book form while giving President Bush a free ride on any and all of his policies and utterances constitutes peculiar logic at best.
While I admire blind faith in those who merit it – a hypothetical precluding actual cases - given the track record of this administration, I can hardly condone it. Afflicting the comfortable seems more than an appropriate antidote to lies and deception. What’s beyond ironic is at the same time as Britt’s cartoon speaks truth to the phony platitude that “we’re fighting them there instead of here,” President Bush seems to have taken his catch phrase out of circulation, only too aware that the recent bombing attack in London, and the foiled attempt two weeks later, render such preposterous slogans temporarily inoperative.
With Prime Minister Tony Blair, if not the majority of his fellow Great Britainers, the United States’ foremost ally in the “War Against Terrorism,” President Bush has good reason to muzzle any inclination to insist that “here” does not technically include England’s largest city. Yet as President Bush prudently self-censors, along comes Mr. [name withheld] to repeat the mind-boggling mantra that obvious observations such as Britt’s somehow equate to “supporting terrorism,” (As opposed to an automatic, unflinching support of government, one would presume.)
That’s one quantum leap I won’t take with Mr. [name withheld], so patently absurd that the temptation to counter it doesn’t even register. Instead, better to let it dangle out there with such pronouncements as that of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who recently suggested that the Catholic Church child abuse epidemic in Boston is not the fault of the priests involved, but of the permissive atmosphere of the city and its universities, with the tacit approval of Massachusetts’ liberal representatives.
Never mind that the highest incidence of priests abusing children happened to occur in some obscure town in Kentucky, according to columnist Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe. And never mind that, while I’m no expert in nor advocate of conservatism, I have always respected the conservative philosophy of holding the actual perpetrator responsible for his or her own behavior. While it might be wise to heed the words of my beloved sister to ignore this nonsense as well as the “supporting terrorism” blather, the hypocrisy of Senator Santorum blaming Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Harvard for the actions of not only the priests in Boston but for the entire scandal is awfully juicy bait.
And never mind so much as speculating that by invading “them” not “there” (Afghanistan), but “there” (Iraq), “we” provoked the motivation to retaliate “here” (London). Never mind the fact that to this day President Bush persists in conflating September 11th with Saddam Hussein. If it is legitimate to maintain that since what’s done is done, that is, since we’re “there” now, we need to remain “there” until it’s really done, Mr. [name withheld] would disallow so much as a discussion of how “we” got “there” in the first place, lest it disturb the powers that be.
Since I write a lot of letters to these pages, occasionally a store clerk or doctor’s receptionist, reading my name on a credit card or appointment notebook, will look up to inquire, “Oh. Are you the same ash who…?” Well, yes, I am. But at the same time as I resist the urge to reply, “What do you think of my ideas?” I’m not particularly flattered by having been recognized as a frequent contributor. After all, it is on these same pages that letters disputing the most precious demonstration of patriotism – the right to dissent – also appear.