Free Speech and a Rabbit

In a letter to the editor published in The Pitt News, Pitt student Greg Vaslowski asked, in… In a letter to the editor published in The Pitt News, Pitt student Greg Vaslowski asked, in response to a piece by columnist J.P. Fridy, ‘Do you guys have something new to talk about besides how much you hate Bush?’

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Maybe it’s just my liberal media conspiracy talking, but I would say: hopefully, no. At least until someone else is in office.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ You see, we’re really not finding fault with George W. Bush. We’re finding fault with the president, the same way we did with Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush, and Gerald Ford, who tended to navigate stairs face first. And Jimmy Carter, who claimed to have been attacked by a swimming rabbit.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ No president has ever been perfect, and none ever will be, so, without fail, they will all deserve criticism. When, hopefully soon, we elect our first black president or our first female president, or, to shorten our list, our first president not to be white, male and Christian, I hope you will realize that the media’s criticism of that president is not because he or she is a minority.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Rather, it will be because the president is not God and, therefore, is fallible, and because that president will be, like this one, the most prominent and powerful person on the planet. When he or she drops the ball on something, it will affect everyone in this country, if not the populace of the entire planet.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Do we hold the president to a higher standard than everyone else? Of course. Because the president is so powerful, we demand perfection, and the president will fall short of that — every day. Therefore, he or she will probably be criticized in the media — every day.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ I must admit, there’s a guilty pleasure to criticizing the most influential person in the world, especially for lowly college students who will probably spend the rest of their lives being lowly.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ And that’s at the very core of democracy. Free speech means that those on the bottom rung can criticize those on the top rung.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ When Britain passed the Tea Act, enacting what would be among the chief causes of the revolution, King George III said that the tax was not about money, but that there must always be one tax, if only to keep up the right to tax.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In the United States, the citizens’ rights are paramount, meaning that it is we who must keep up these rights. Thus, every criticism, even those that are ill informed and mean-spirited, and especially those that are subversive, benefits every one of the U.S.’s citizens.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ If Vaslowski had objected on the grounds that it becomes boring to read one diatribe after another, his point would have been more than valid.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Instead, he says, ‘I bet if Bill Clinton or Howard Dean had gone after Iraq, this article would have never been written.’

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ It’s possible, but even if that were so, someone would write a column arguing that Clinton lacked the military experience to be a wartime commander-in-chief, or that Dean had failed to live up to promises made during his campaign — not that he has promised anything, at this point.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Someone will always have a complaint. It may be a different complaint, but the U.S. media will criticize every president, not out of hatred, but because we can, and we revel in having a right that most people in the world don’t.

Bow down, bow down, before the power of Santa, or be crushed, be crushed, by his jolly boots of doom. E-mail Marty at xgrp@hotmail.com.