If you haven’t had a chance to visit From Where I Sit, please do. It is an excellent blog by my good friend Mark D’Elicio who also has the good fortune of having guest columnists, which I do not (all interested in applying click here.) His latest guest column explores the recent media coverage of Jane Fonda and the Pope. I of course could not let this pass without adding my own two cents. My response to the column is below, and while I it feel stands fairly well on its own, it is best served in response to the original column, which can be read here.
While it is true that Hanoi Jane made a number of incendiary and completely regrettable statements during the Vietnam War, she made those statements over 30 years ago. I am certainly not trying to diminish the impact her words and actions had back then, and continue to have to this day for those who survived. But why do I sense an air of hypocrisy when many of her detractors insist on turning a blind eye to our own Baghdad Bush?
Sending our troops into an unjust, unprovoked war, misleading them and us as to their intent, failing to armor them properly and failing to take care of all of them upon their return is more criminal then any syllable uttered by Fonda. While it can be argued that President Bush is not directly accountable in every instance, it can also be argued that the Captain of a ship is responsible for the actions of his crew, and that the difference in accountability between a president and an actor should be at least as wide as the Grand Canyon. Again I don’t justify or condone what Jane Fonda did, I personally abhor it, but how can I not turn that same critical eye toward the current administration and the current "Vietnam?" And I’d be obligated to train that eye regardless of which Party was in power.
As for the Pope, outside of the editorial section, it was never my impression that the "liberal media" disapproved of him. It was my impression however that there was far too much coverage and too much sensationalizing of the events (of which both the liberal and conservative media are frequently guilty) while legitimate local and national news suffered. The lead story in most newspapers and news programs concerned the Pope’s death and the build up to his successor, and not 50 plus U.S. Troops and countless Coalition troops and Iraqis who died that month.
I think electing a new Pope of color would have been a bold and forward-looking move for the Catholic Church but it is the least of my concerns. What does concern me is that the previous and current Pope have not done enough to address the Catholic scandals here at home (and possibly abroad), short of calling many back to the church, conducting investigations in secret, and giving one a prominent role in a recent Vatican function after the Pope’s death. And before I am painted as either anti-Catholic or anti-religion, I would raise the same red flag whether they were Atheist or Protestant.
Circling back to Jane Fonda, her recent notoriety will no doubt be short-lived, as the "liberal media" moves on to the next American Idol and Apprentice at the bereft of what is really important. By the way, where was the "liberal media" when it was hanging Clinton on a stained dress? No FOX News was required back then. Is the leaning of the media inversely proportional to the leaning of the administration in power at the time? Food for thought.
“Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.”