The Contrarian

The laws of physics teach that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Something similar could be said in the realm of political thought as many traditional rights can be exercised in an almost Taoist fashion, meaning they can be actively or passively employed. For example, one enjoys the benefits of the Second Amendment whether one becomes an enthusiastic sharpshooter or abstains from firearms totally as an avid pacifist.

Yet certain liberals aren’t likely to admit that the First Amendment is itself also a two-way street. But if you are free to say what you want, then it follows I am just as much within my rights not to listen.

In his response to my criticism of the Dixie Chicks, Mike Sarzo at PolitixGroup.com ( http://www.politixgroup.com/comm147.htm reveals what the average liberal believes regarding free expression and to whom it should be granted. As with most other aspects of this ideology, its positions regarding these issues are an opaque montage of twisted logic imperiling both commonsense and human liberty.

Sarzo writes, “One aspect of freedom of speech is that it often covers speech that you don’t agree with, ... the right also covers your freedom to say something even if everyone else doesn’t agree with you.” Funny, he opened his essay saying, “Frederick Meekins’ recent column berating the Dixie Chicks was a poorly worded, badly reasoned set of grade school-styled barbs that have no place on a website of political debate.”

In other words, political discourse should be as about as stimulating as hearing Al Gore recite the alphabet. So much for celebrating opinions with which ones does not agree. Seems such lofty platitudes are nullified if you happen to disagree with Mr. Sarzo.

No where did I say that the Dixie Chicks should have their constitutional rights abridged. That said, that does not mean we cannot use our own speech to criticize those we deem to be utilizing this sacred trust inappropriately or refuse to lavish them with the bounty of unfettered commerce for enunciating values antithetical to our own worldview.

But apart from questioning my nearly infallible intellect, the danger of those like Mike Sarzo arise in their propensity to view rights in a relativistic utilitarian sense rather than in an inalienable absolutist manner. For if thinkers view rights as descending from an alterable, finite source such as government or culture, then these precepts can be manipulated to suit whatever elite happens to be pulling the strings.

Mike Sarzo bemoans anyone daring to question the anti-American rabble, but has little concern about denying these same rights to the more-backwards people of the earth. Moral absolutists, on the other hand, hold that, as individual human beings, all men are created equal; however, their respective cultures are not. Some ways of life are inherently superior to others.

Sarzo writes, “For better or worse, many throughout the world are not culturally inclined to support the idea of having a system that mirrors the American system of government... To assume that most people want or need democracy is ... yet another example of [the] provincialism that has contributed to much anti-American resentment throughout the world.” I guess this overwhelming disgust for at least the material component of our way of life is why our metropolitan areas are so packed with immigrants now that many of these areas no longer resemble America anymore.

According to Mike Sarzo, some people don’t deserve to be free in their native lands. Perhaps he sees nothing wrong with Udday grabbing woman off the street to rape for his own sadistic pleasure. Those who languished under Saddam’s iron rule had far more serious abridgements of fundamental freedoms to worry about than whether or not their albums would remain atop the Billboard charts.

Mr. Sarzo hems and haws about the shortsightedness of provincialism but himself fails to comprehend basic geopolitical strategy. Sure, there might be regimes that posed a more direct threat to the United States than Hussein’s Iraq as Sarzo claims. But when cleaning house, you’ve got to start somewhere.

Apart from the defensive value of eliminating --- or at least crippling --- a major bastion and fomenter of world terrorism, Iraq was selected in part to serve as an example as to what awaits the rogues, tyrants, and all-around scumbags daring to kindle America’s righteous indignation. For the most part, the U.S. can only take on so many adversaries at one time.

It is, therefore, prudent first to topple those nations already tottering on the brink of collapse. Once Iraq is squared away, the U.S. should prepare to put Syria and Iran in their places if they don’t come to their senses. We’ll even take on the French if we have to; I am sure the Boy Scouts will enjoy the snail-eaters cowering before them.

Islam has been around for over a thousand years. Terrorism won’t be going away over night. These things will take time.

Part of the justification for this ongoing war against terrorism is the preservation of the basic liberties that make America a shining beacon to freedom-loving people all around the world. The right to express dissention must be upheld. Likewise, my right to ignore such inane prattle by refusing to listen or to reward you is just as essential to the continuance of this grand republic.

If you would like to exchange links please send an e-mail
agent758@takingbackamericanewsletter.com.