Cheer Up Charlies
What Is 'Bashing' Anyway
RECEIVED Mon., Oct. 6, 2003
Regarding the last bit in Louis Black's "Page Two" (Oct. 3):
In response to the quoted letter-writer's complaint that Mr. Bush is being bashed with a higher level of venom than Clinton and other U.S. presidents: Clinton was indeed viciously criticized and impeached, as Black clearly stated. Furthermore, "bashing" is, to some degree, part of people's disagreement with Bush's policies. Some Americans think that such disagreement is justified, vitally important, and a helluvalot better than many Americans' apathy toward politics!
And my question is, where exactly does one draw the line between healthy criticism and "bashing"? After all, where important issues are involved, passionate opinions are bound to follow. For every person, there is a line somewhere between right and wrong, and if Dubya has crossed that line in whatever policy domain in some critics' eyes, should such critics politely accept his disagreeable policies, thinly disguised lies, and manipulations of power anyway? How can they do so without violating their own honesty and integrity? Words can hurt but they are the best and most socially acceptable weapon many critics have, especially in these times of mainstream media manipulation.
In response to the quoted letter-writer's complaint that Mr. Bush is being bashed with a higher level of venom than Clinton and other U.S. presidents: Clinton was indeed viciously criticized and impeached, as Black clearly stated. Furthermore, "bashing" is, to some degree, part of people's disagreement with Bush's policies. Some Americans think that such disagreement is justified, vitally important, and a helluvalot better than many Americans' apathy toward politics!
And my question is, where exactly does one draw the line between healthy criticism and "bashing"? After all, where important issues are involved, passionate opinions are bound to follow. For every person, there is a line somewhere between right and wrong, and if Dubya has crossed that line in whatever policy domain in some critics' eyes, should such critics politely accept his disagreeable policies, thinly disguised lies, and manipulations of power anyway? How can they do so without violating their own honesty and integrity? Words can hurt but they are the best and most socially acceptable weapon many critics have, especially in these times of mainstream media manipulation.
Anna Ferrini
