Dartmouth ought to be a land of opportunity and open-mindedness, where all are free to express dissent or support a position. But unfortunately within the current state of affairs, it has become increasingly difficult to express that opinion which has been granted to us without being viciously attacked by any who feel differently.
Last I checked we still had freedom of speech. Then again, President Bush wields that particular amendment like a holy sword, which he keeps next to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the newspaper whose headline reads "Iraq Going Well!"
I did not read Sarah Sticker's article (The Dartmouth, "Come Out and Vote," October 11), but I did, indeed, happen upon Bruce Gago's scathing reciprocation (The Dartmouth, "An Alternate Look at Politics," October 13) -- an op-ed piece that eerily echoed Dick Cheney's acidic responses in the vice presidential debate last week.
In this case, a liberal attacked the conservative standpoint, and, as Bush supporters are often wont to do, Gago immediately went on the defensive, following his commander-in-chief's strict advice that "the best defense is a good offense." In a defense of Jerry Thacker, recent appointee to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, Gago claimed that by his calling AIDS the "gay plague," Thacker was merely restating what others before him had said. Does that make it right for anyone to say the ever feared n-word to a black person because it has previously emanated from a human larynx?
What Gago fails to mention, however, is that Thacker also called the homosexual way of life a "deathstyle," an expression which he also claims he did not coin. In an interview with "Christianity Today," Thacker explained that the term "deathstyle" could be used for a chain smoker. Essentially, it is a word which can be used for anyone with a practice causing an untimely demise -- a pitiless, ignoble death.
Gago then goes on to paint Thacker as a shy family man, someone who was wrongfully infected with the abominable "gay plague" and suffers more each day. But what Gago dexterously did (a skill I'm sure he obtained by watching Fox News Channel) was to turn Thacker's refusal of the position into martyrdom. According to Gago, "the media barrage on the soft-spoken Thacker put such stress on his family that he withdrew from the panel before even being confirmed."
Perhaps, but let's take a look at the facts.
Patricia Ware, the official who recommended Thacker for the nomination, recently relinquished her position. "Administration officials said Ware was being promoted to a more influential role," The Washington Post reported. "But several sources involved said she was moved to avoid further embarrassment over the selection of Jerry Thacker."
Even White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was quick to renounce any affiliation between the president's views and those which Thacker holds. "Those words are as wrong as they are inappropriate. And they are not shared by the president," Fleischer told a press briefing. "The views that [Thacker] holds are far, far removed from what the president believes."
When even the president, who openly opposes equal rights for homosexuals, distances himself from such an individual, we have to wonder -- how bad is this guy, exactly?
Fairly hypocritical, I'd say.
Thacker has also said that the "primary tactic used by gay radicals is intimidation. They're going to be in your face and they're going to be noisy." Rings a bell, doesn't it? It seems a bit like the "O'Reilly Factor." But let's not jump to extremes. We'll use President Bush instead.
While W. keeps the nation in a constant state of fear, using the same intimidation tactics Thacker thinks so abominable, the gays are certainly not allowed to employ such methods! That would be unthinkable!
Gago finishes up by condemning Sticker's writing, saying that "a persuasive argument is more than trying to instill fear into our hearts." Yet I'm sure if Bruce and I were face to face, he would doggedly claim that Bush's terror alerts and gut-wrenching stump speeches are certainly the best way to win the hearts of American voters.
Then again, the "say one thing but do another" approach has always been a successful tactic for those in the Bush camp. I doubt I'd be alone in asserting the hypocrisy of the recent claims of success in Iraq while the death toll mounts and the insurgents become stronger.
Unfortunately, what needs to happen, rather than claiming no responsibility, is for the Bush administration to admit that sometimes mistakes are made, and that not enough information was examined beforehand.
Then again, why would they start now?
