Today, I got up, rounded up the family, went to middle son’s soccer game, visited with the in-laws at their “vacation home” at the RV campground, shopped for wood for middle son’s new bed, grabbed some take-out, and finally wound up back home with some very overtired kids for a quick dinner twelve hours after we left, facing a sink and counter piled high with dishes and a messy garage that needed straightening up before hubby could start work on son’s bed. Wonderful, relaxing Saturday… in a high speed hardly sitting down kind of way.
“Hey, what did you and the hubby do for Saturday night?”
“We went to Home Depot and Lowe’s, then swept spiders out of the garage! Woohoo!”
So, I will not be posting at length tonight. Just one quick thought.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I already mentioned Kathleen Parker’s column calling for Palin to resign. I discussed my suspicions that this had more to to with Parker’s personally-opposed-but-publicly-pro-choice stance than with Palin’s interviews. Our paper, which certainly does not include all of Kathleen Parker’s columns on the editorial page (or many conservatives, for that matter; Michelle Malkin has been banned for being too radical and mean, but we get Maureen Dowd pretty regularly. Apparently, only conservatives can be banned for being too angry.), chose to include both Parker’s initial call for Palin to quit the race and the follow-up where Parker continues to justify her position, and then complains about nasty comments from cyberspace.
“I hear you, Dixie Chicks,” she griped.
Really?
Maybe Parker meant the comment as a reflection on the preceding paragraph, where she decried the degeneration of the exchange of ideas into threats and name-calling. But I don’t think that was the Dixie Chicks real problem; they weren’t just mad about excessive behavior, they were mad that anybody held them accountable for what they chose to say. “You’re interfering with our First Amendment rights!” they cried when people criticized them or refused to play their music.
I guess Parker’s and the Dixie Chicks’ situations are similar. The Dixie Chicks, at a London concert, said they were embarassed that President Bush was from Texas. The crowd cheered the put-down. Predictably, country fans did not appreciate either the comment or the choice of venue. Bad enough that the singers publicly mocked a sitting president, but worse that they chose to do it in a foreign country. Radio stations yanked the Dixie Chicks’ music, fans yelled at concerts, and the Dixie Chicks had a follow-up snit where they complained that their First Amendment rights were being ignored.
Ladies, you are free to say pretty much whatever you want. And we are free to say that we do not like it, will not pay for it, and don’t want to hear from you anymore, which includes dumping you from our radio stations. You exercised your rights, and we exercised ours. Deal with it.
Kathleen Parker called for the Republican vice presidential candidate to bow out just weeks before the election. Whether you like Palin or not, the fact is that this would be political suicide at this point. (For example, Sen. Ryan of Illinois was leading solidly in his reelection race when the nasty details of his divorce were made public, forcing him to quit the race. Ryan was replaced at the last minute by Alan Keyes, who was defeated by Barack Obama, who gained an advantage from suddenly being the more known candidate.) Predictably, many conservatives saw Parker’s column as a nasty stab in the back; how could anyone who says she espouses conservative values encourage Republicans to hand Obama the election?
Parker got comments on the column ranging from appreciative to mean and threatening. An upcoming speaking engagement for a conservative organization was abruptly cancelled. Parker, apparently, is shocked that people would behave in a manner that ”Stalin would approve.” (Ok, Ms. Parker, so we can’t call you an idiot for your views, but you can compare people whose main fault is to disagree with you to a homicidal, paranoid, communist maniac. Thanks, that really raises the level of the discussion.)
Ma’am, you are free to say pretty much whatever you want. And we are free to say that we do not like it, may not read much more of it because we are questioning your judgment, and won’t pay you to come speak anymore. Deal with it.
The First Amendment cuts both ways. Yes, you have freedom of speech. So do I.
The First Amendment does not guarantee that there will not be consequences for what you choose to say, only that no law will be passed that abridges your right to choose what you say (except for libel, threats against the President, lying under oath, and several others… not so all-encompassingly absolute as some try to claim, is it?).
So, I can say that someone else is wrong. They can counter that I, in fact, am the one who is wrong. A Catholic school board can fire someone from a Catholic school position for publicly supporting abortion. I can pick and choose which comments to allow on my blog (I don’t; I’ve approved all the non-spam comments so far, I just prefer to see them first, which is why they don’t appear immediately); you have the freedom to speak your mind, but not necessarily here.
If you are not willing to accept the perfectly legal consequences of your words, then do not say them. If you do say them, you accept that the First Amendment rights that protect you also allow me to say I do not agree, as forcefully as I choose. It may not be polite, but, within the legal limits, it is my right.
Deal with it.
That was very well written, Thank you! If I may suggest that we show Congress their consequences for trampling our bill of rights There is a movement that has begun, to take back or country from these politicians in Washington. Americas’ future need your help. I mean no disrespect but this is too important. Go to PurgeTheSystem.com and approve this message if you agree with its message. Thank you and God Bless America!!
Some really good points once again. And again it’s all about my favorite trope: Personal Responsibility. If one is going to make a public statement on Anything, one must be ready (without post statement whining) to accept the reactions to one’s statement. The Chicks’ real downfall, in my mind was in protraying themselves a victims of anything and unwilling to simply state ‘Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.’
[PW: I think that's Martin Luther's quote, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."]
I’m in the same part of the USofA as you are and I well know that reaction of folks around here to the Chicks’ statement. I also remember the Positive reaction to Toby Keith insisting in verse that putting a boot in someones’ ass was the American way.
I spoke up about it in partcular conversations and was ready and armed for the backlash when I expressed my disgust & sorrow with the “boot in the ass” sentiment. But I took the disapprobation and shot back with some good ole Gospel reasoning (the oxymoron of beating someone across the head with The Consistent Life Ethic).
People were free to act and speak as they wished about my statements that a boot in the ass was a piss-poor public response/reaction. I’d talked with my father confessor about anger enough to have my reasoning down pat and a solid foundation for it.
The gist is that I knew right well what I was saying and would stand up without whining in defense of my position, come what may. It is in the end about Personal Responsilbilty as Gov. Palin said.