Years ago, I decided that it was important to maintain balance in my exposure to political opinion. If I read Richard Cohen and Molly Ivins, I will also read Charlie Krauthammer and Cal Thomas. I figure that it does not make me a more informed citizen to read only those with whom I agree. I do not regret the decision, although I must admit that it is tainted with a certain amount of self-righteousness.
Speaking of self-righteousness, my dedication to this practice was severely tested on Wednesday morning, Dec. 21, while I read Cal Thomas' column. There Cal is, staring dreamily off into God-knows-where (however, as Cal seems to have a direct communications pipeline to God, I am sure they have agreed on a suitable place) telling me that my "civil liberties mean nothing."
He didn't use "right to privacy" — a concept whose existence is the subject of occasional argument. He didn't use the word "privilege," as if to suggest that it is optional. He said "civil liberties" — a concept central to the founding of the country.
And he wants me to know that they have no value, although he obviously values the "civil liberties" of the Iraqi people, as evidenced by the fact that he is willing to go, uninvited, to war in their pursuit. Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Who do we want to speak for us — Ben or Cal?
—Ken Schumacher, Ames.
attribution
No comments:
Post a Comment