Celebrities aren't the only ones who should check their opinions at the door
In his column "Attention celebrities: Please, shut up!" (The Eagle, 9/25/06), Caleb Enerson writes a diatribe against celebrities voicing their opinions on political and current events. Over the course of this column, Enerson attacks Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, George Clooney and the like for "bashing various Republican leaders," "find[ing] time to lecture the rest of us about how we should live," and being one-sided.
Well, let's look over to the right wing and see what we find on Enerson's side of the aisle. Oh, what do have we here. The Republican echo chamber! People bashing Democrats left and right, lecturing us on how we should live, being one-sided, and being downright cruel and vicious in doing so.
Enerson complains that being an actor requires no degree in political science, international relations, or anything else, and yet Rush Limbaugh dropped out of college after one year. Where is Enerson's condemnation of this talking head? Not to mention that Limbaugh has spent his entire career finding the time to lecture the rest of us about how we should live, including attacking drug users, and yet he turns out to have abused Oxycontin.
"Dr." Laura Schlessinger has a Ph.D. in physiology, not psychology or psychiatry or a medicine-related field. Schlessinger has spent her career lecturing the rest of us about how we should live, including attacking day care, arguing that the best parents are "stay-at-home-moms," and arguing against divorces when children are involved. And yet this formerly licensed marriage therapist (whose license has lapsed and yet she still refers to herself as a licensed therapist) had an affair with Bill Balance during her first marriage, and while divorced, had an affair with a married man with dependent children (who then left his wife to marry Schlessinger). Clearly a paragon of moral virtue with a stunning educational background. Martin Sheen, move over.
Let us end our brief look at the right wing commentators with Sean Hannity. Another college dropout, with no degree in political science, international relations, or anything else, Hannity has found plenty of time to lecture the rest of us about how we should live, attacking homosexuals and victims of police brutality. In one of his classiest moments, he accused Abner Louima of lying about his forced sodomization at the hands of NYPD officers, arguing that he sustained his injuries during a "gay sex act." Of course, Officer Justin Volpe admitted to sodomizing Louima with the plunger, which kinda undercuts Hannity, but his spewing of hot air goes on. Hannity, a fan of bashing the left, has been caught on tape coaching guests on how to respond to Alan Colmes' questions. He has also bashed the ACLU, the same organization that came to his defense early in his career when he was fired from Santa Barbara's KCSB for gay bashing. No good deed goes unpunished by the hypocrites of right wing media, I suppose.
Let us be honest about this issue. Yes, celebrities do not often have backgrounds in political science or international relations, and many majored in drama or have no degrees at all. Yes, celebrities do not have access to classified information and are thus no better informed than the average citizen when it comes to that sort of thing.
But as demonstrated above: self-proclaimed social and political commentators do not necessarily have any advanced education or background in political science or international relations either. And unless the Bush administration is selectively leaking information again, they do not have access to classified intelligence. Celebrities do not claim to be an expert on the issues, they merely acknowledge that they can gain an audience due to their fame and use it to express their opinions. What are Limbaugh's, Schlessinger's and Hannity's excuses?
Jedediah Sorokin-Altmann is a student at the Washington College of Law.
Libertarian debate continues
Steven Smallpage's Sept. 21 letter in opposition to the Eagle's regular libertarian column deserves comment because its specific claims about the "hypocrisy and ineffectiveness" of classical liberalism are widespread but, sadly, unjust.
Smallpage attempts to discredit libertarian philosophy by chaining it to famous people who, it is assumed, must be correct because they are famous. He attempts this trick first with Hobbes. A libertarian would reject Hobbes' very premise about the state of nature in favor of a more anthropologically accurate history - prehistoric societies grew and evolved because of cooperation among individuals, specialized labor roles that allowed trade and higher standards of living, and the fact that coexistence was less costly than war. Later, Adam Smith's name is invoked in defense of state economic intervention. Once again, ignoring the fact that Smith probably saw less of a role for government than any thinker before him, it does nothing to address whether the specific arguments posited by libertarians would be beneficial today.
Classical liberalism never claims to offer magical, cost-free solutions to society's problems. Like democracy, it can aspire to no more than the status of "best among imperfect options." But as the artificiality and logical inconsistencies of the left-right, Democrat-Republican dialogue become more and more insufferable, libertarianism may prove to offer the "third way" out of the current ideological standstill and towards a better society for everyone.
Daniel Guamera is a senior in the School of Public Affairs.
