RIGHT OF DISSENT

During President George W. Bush's administration, the attacks on his
policies were never ending. It was alleged that President Bush was lacking
in IQ. (We learned after the Kerry-Bush campaign that Bush' college grades
equaled or exceeded John Kerry's, but the negative point had been made.).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
August 10, 2005, Richard Benedeto wrote

While the general impression during the 2004 presidential campaign was that Democrat John Kerry was the intellectual superior to President Bush, it turns out that their grades
while undergraduate students at Yale were remarkably similar. In fact, Bush's were a tad higher. His four-year average was 77; Kerry's 76. Both were C students. Kerry graduated from Yale in 1966;Bush in 1968

President Bush was criticized for being a liar because no weapons of mass
destruction were found in Iraq, ridiculed for his lack of communication
skills and every mispronounced word was headlined. As a person who supported
the Bush presidency, I accepted these outbursts of dissatisfaction as
necessary to credibility. Dissent promotes an examination of truth.

Today, disagreements with the administration incites verbal attacks that
accuses those who dissent of flawed thoughts and inferior IQ. Dissent abuse
has become particularly loud against Sarah Palin and the tea party movement.
Intimidation of those who disagree with the preconceived ideas of elitist
is practiced freely. Both the verbal left and right seem to believe
that free speech should be limited to their speech. Personally, I am
offended by those who would attack dissenting views. My disdain is not
limited to those who may disagree with me. We do not have to agree with the
view of others, but good manners requires that we respect them. Dissent is
a two way street and should be equally cherished and protected by all.

Many of my friends do not share my political philosophy or my personal
values. They are not flawed. They see the world through a different prism.
They judge with a different yardstick. Because I know these people to be
good, well intentioned, compassionate and caring people, Irespect their concerns, ideas and beliefs. I may even agree with some of their concerns but I want to hear their reasons, their logic and explore their motives.Although I may disagree with them, they need to hear themselves make their own case. I have found that our positions can best be understood when we personally communicate them.
Sometimes the mere exchange of ideas causes us to glimpse the vulnerability
of our position. We need the insight that debate provides but that debate
needs to be logical, reasoned and spoke in a spirit of learning. I do not
want to be intimidated into accepting truth where truth does not exist.

The media should be asking the questions, probing the positions and
enlightening our understanding, but it does not. Thus, we must rely on
people who have the courage to ask the questions, suggest alternatives and explore
the possibilities. Free speech is key to survival for our way of life.

My mother who had only an elementary education had a favorite cliché that
she often shared with me. "THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT". Today her simple cliché would undoubtedly raise an outcry from PETA (mind you, I do not recommend skinning a cat) but the phrase suggests there may be
alternatives. That, it seems to me, is an application for American
ingenuity. Those who think they have answers should welcome and
encourage debate and welcome authentication of their ideas. The debate of
ideas should be recognized as a combined exercise of free speech and a
search for wisdom. The Obama administration and its supporters should
welcome discussion and questions of their positions. In fact, shouldn't the
questions raised by those who site the dissenters as educationally
challenged take precedence for analysis and, thus, reveal the value of the concept and the soundness of its premise?