Monday, September 25, 2006
Bush-bashers need follow-up questions
The hipster doofi who make up the Americana Music movement graced the city of Nashville with their collective presence over the weekend. The Tennessean reports on the Americana award-givin' confab, and our morning daily mentions the left-wing, Bush-bashin' politics these folks have been - and continue to - espouse. Now I'm all for free speech; but when a guitar-strummin' nitwit tears into President Bush, he or she needs to be asked a few follow-up questions.
Folkie singers have long criticized the Iraq War as an "illegal" conflict. If given the opportunity, I'd like to ask these folks the following question: If the United States attacks a regime (Iraq) that has abrogated the terms of a cease-fire agreement (which Saddam Hussein's regime did repeatedly from 1991-2003) how is that "illegal?" I'm sure a deafening silence would follow.
Any bespeckled warbler who chooses to criticize the President's economic policies should be asked to define "marginal tax rate." Better still, he or she should be asked to explain the laws of supply and demand in detail. Following what would no doubt be several minutes of unlearned stammering, I'd ask: "Since you've no grasp of basic economics, why should I take into consideration anything you have to say about the current state of the U.S. economy?" (I'd pay good money to spend a half-hour explaining how the economy works to Americana troubadour Steve Earl, who's on record as stating that his views are Communistic.)
It seems like every person with a recording contract wishes to share his political beliefs with the world. They're certainly entitled to their opinions, and they have the same right to free expression that all Americans enjoy. However, they should not be insulated from tough follow-up questions when they enter the public arena. If they were forced to explain their views beyond emotionalist rants, I'm quite certain that most celebrity political commentary would end.
Folkie singers have long criticized the Iraq War as an "illegal" conflict. If given the opportunity, I'd like to ask these folks the following question: If the United States attacks a regime (Iraq) that has abrogated the terms of a cease-fire agreement (which Saddam Hussein's regime did repeatedly from 1991-2003) how is that "illegal?" I'm sure a deafening silence would follow.
Any bespeckled warbler who chooses to criticize the President's economic policies should be asked to define "marginal tax rate." Better still, he or she should be asked to explain the laws of supply and demand in detail. Following what would no doubt be several minutes of unlearned stammering, I'd ask: "Since you've no grasp of basic economics, why should I take into consideration anything you have to say about the current state of the U.S. economy?" (I'd pay good money to spend a half-hour explaining how the economy works to Americana troubadour Steve Earl, who's on record as stating that his views are Communistic.)
It seems like every person with a recording contract wishes to share his political beliefs with the world. They're certainly entitled to their opinions, and they have the same right to free expression that all Americans enjoy. However, they should not be insulated from tough follow-up questions when they enter the public arena. If they were forced to explain their views beyond emotionalist rants, I'm quite certain that most celebrity political commentary would end.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 25, 2006 
