Where I Stand — Columnist Brian Greenspun: A questioning mind

Friday, April 23, 2004 | 4:33 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WEEKEND EDITION

April 24 - 25, 2004

It happens every so often that there is so much to talk about in the news and not enough time or space to properly discuss the who, what, when, where and why that make the news so interesting. This past week was one of those times. So, in this enlightened age of quick reads and 30-second sound bites, here are a few bits of news worth considering:

First, there is the announcement that both President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will appear before the 9-11 Commission on Thursday to answer the commission's questions about what did and did not happen in the days and months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. The pair will testify together and they will do so in secret and not under oath.

That raises just a few questions that should not have to be raised. Why together? Might not the country be better served if the two men most responsible for the policies and practices of the government of the United States leading up to that horrible day testify about what they knew and did separately? Wouldn't the commission be able to learn more about the nuances of the decisions taken if the two witnesses were asked similar questions and were allowed to answer freely, without concern for the way in which the other might answer? When looking for the best way to improve upon our governmental efforts to stop terrorism, isn't it in this country's best interests to get answers free from the pressures either of these two men might unknowingly exert upon the other? I don't know what the best answer is, I am just asking the question.

And why, when the other witnesses testified under oath and in public, are we letting President Bush and Vice President Cheney do it in secret? I know the answer to that one, I think. Because there may be secrets that should not be told and because of this thing called executive privilege. They will point to President Bill Clinton's similar setup before the commission. OK, suppose we buy the privilege-and-secrets dodge to avoid the need to explain themselves to the American voters, what about the swearing-in bit? President Bush prides himself on being plain-spoken to the American people. It seems to me that he should be the last person to fear leveling with us under oath and the first person to eschew the use of non-sworn testimony. First, that isn't the way he tells us he is and second, it will only lead to speculation that he may have fudged the truth in favor of election-year politics. Again, I don't know the answers, I am just asking the questions.

But, enough about them.

What about that terrible train wreck we have been hearing about in North Korea? I realize it is frustrating only being able to find out what the government in North Korea wants us to know --- think about that as you consider this government's insistence on controlling what we see and hear regarding the conduct of the war, the treatment of prisoners and the casualties returning to the United States -- but we have learned some important things.

First, accidents, even really horrendous ones, do happen. Secondly, hundreds and thousands of people can be killed when we least expect it and when we have guarded sufficiently against it. Can you imagine if that train were carrying high-level nuclear waste, such as plutonium, when it collided? We wouldn't be counting our dead in the mere thousands. And we wouldn't be doing business as usual courtesy of a news blackout by the federal government. No, everyone would know about it and few, if any, would come to see it. In short, tourism would be as desolate as the area in which that Korean train blew up.

Again, I don't know the answers and I doubt that you do either. I am just asking the questions.

And, finally, to Howard Stern. I don't listen to the man, don't have the patience, the time or the inclination. But I know that millions of Americans do listen and they love him. Is that why the Bush administration is trying to shut him up? By attacking a man who lives by the obscene -- whatever that is -- and who engages his vast audiences with the obscene -- whatever that is -- our government is exercising a form of censorship that could lead to all manner of free speech, especially political speech, being chased or forced from the airwaves.

Stern's vulgarity is nothing new. What is new is the size of the fines imposed by the Federal Communications Commission and the zeal with which the arbiters of public morality are attacking the evildoers. They have even gone so far as to encourage a major broadcaster to turn off Stern's mike and send him packing. And it is not just Stern. Television networks are also being hammered, not because they put on something obscene -- whatever that is -- but because someone on their show couldn't curb their own tongues.

It is true that there are more complaints being filed. It is also true that the religious right is so organized that its leaders can mobilize millions of people to complain at the drop of a swear word. What is also new, though, is the government's willingness to cave in so quickly to those who take offense. Is this just election-year politics or are people such as Attorney General John Ashcroft so bent out of moral shape that they are making this their life's calling? You know, to clean up the airwaves so the rest of us can be free of that which we hear every single day and night at our jobs, in the public square and, sometimes, in the supposed sanctity of our own homes. Hey, I am just asking the questions.

And, finally, what about that Michigan city that says it is OK for the Muslim prayer leaders to call out across the town via loudspeakers to their faithful to come to pray? Those in favor say the loudspeakers that will blare out five times a day, every day, are no different from the church bells we hear on Sunday. Oh, really?

Rather than having made that a freedom of religion issue, why didn't the people in that town consider it the way most places would, as a loudspeaker issue? No one can inflict themselves on the people of Las Vegas five times a day for two minutes just because they want to. Maybe once in a while for good reason, but every day? What about all the people who don't want to listen to loudspeakers? Are they just to cover their ears? And how many other groups are going to come forward to share their messages in the very high decibel range? It could get to the point where our public streets start to sound like "Crossfire" or Chris Matthews -- everyone yelling at once!

Again, I don't know the answers. I am just asking the questions. But, then again, shouldn't somebody?

archive