CRITICS CANNOT HELP BUT BE CRITICAL

Critics sometimes just have to be critical. I remember a local movie critic, now deceased, who took his job (and title) so seriously that he could seldom bring himself to praise a film. He reviewed every film as if it were supposed to be great art rather than just entertainment.  Many popular film therefore failed to receive his recommendation.


Some political commentators, dare I say “critics,” operate in a similar manner. In their case, though, the decision to be critical or supportive of something happening in national politics derives from their party affiliation. Hence, they will never be found writing something critical of a person in their chosen political party, nor will they challenge a piece of legislation offered by leaders in “the party.” Similarly, their readers can trust them always to find something critical to say about members of the opposing party; and they will nit-pick to pieces any legislation put forth by that party – even when they have nothing better to offer.

We have come to accept that as the nature of politics and we excuse our favorite commentators for all such sins.

I do not! There can be no bipartisan solutions to our nation’s problems as long as the electorate accepts, even expects, their elected representatives to act in this manner. Blind acceptance to anything coming out of “your” party and single-minded opposition to everything proposed by the other party is not leadership.  It is sheep-like, follow-the-leader politics, even if that takes the country over the cliff. It’s stupid and we should not tolerate it.

The tea party movement is an expression of many people’s disgust with the way things are done (or not) in Washington. Many people in the movement want all the scoundrels in Washington replaced. That’s not likely to happen, but that doesn't’t stop critics from searching under every stone for something about which they can complain.  I share some of their frustration.

I also share some of Wendy Button’s ideas in her Huffington Post piece about The White House Correspondents Dinner.  She, however, got off track right at the beginning. She opened with, “There is no other time than the night of The White House Correspondents Dinner when Washington is more out of touch with the country it guides and informs.”

From there, she went on to rage about how all those correspondents and politicians of both parties are laughing it up and celebrating while our young men are dying in Iran and Afghanistan. She did, however raise some interesting points.  She went on to point out that since the wars began, and as of April 29, 2010,  Department of Defense reports show, “that in Iraq 31,790 have been wounded and 4,397 have been killed and in Afghanistan, 5,677 have been wounded and 1,043 killed.”

Those are sobering figures, figures worthy of our consideration. Ms. Button alerts readers to the little known fact that the “wounded in action number is incomplete. It excludes [emphasis added] everyone who was medically evacuated because of a serious injury or illness.” She quickly provides “the total number of non-fatal casualties that includes those wounded in action and those medically evacuated for injuries and illness,” as 70,615 in Iraq and 14,936 in Afghanistan.

Doing the arithmetic for her readers, she reveals that “the total number of battlefield casualties is 90,925” while stating “That number is arresting in its size and the American people need to know it.”

I agree with her on that point. We are ill informed about the wars by Washington and too often ignore our wounded service members once they have returned from these two wars, and previous wars.

It’s easy to feel sympathy for the wounded veteran in a wheel chair or one who is missing a limb. It is much harder to stir the public to action for less obvious service-related problems. Among the 2 million or so men and women who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, Button notes, “the suicide rate for active duty soldiers has more than doubled since these wars began, nearly 15 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed, and their families have to fight to get a wheel chair or surgery or help with a creeping traumatic brain injury.”

We should be ashamed. I support her disappointment that these figures are not reported more and that more people are not clamoring for their elected representatives to do more for our service people. There are many chest thumpers and flag wavers across the land who want us to “Support Our Troops,” but I don’t see many demonstrations demanding better treatment for our servicemen and women when they return from harms way.

Button loses my support when she begins her tirade against the “prominent journalists” at The White House Correspondents Dinner who should have used that platform to inform the public and the politicians present of the need for action on this matter.

I do not support the idea that because there are problems with our fighting service people, or that there are other problems in the land – tornadoes, oil slicks, bank failures, droughts, floods or earthquakes – that we must stop having parties with “bad jokes and back slapping.” Nor do I support the idea that having such an affair as The White House Correspondents Dinner shows that Washington “is more out of touch with the country it guides and informs.” That is nonsense.

As I said at the beginning, critics sometimes just have to be critical. This was one of those times for Wendy Button. She could have written a brilliant piece exposing the lack of care and support we give those asked to go fight for us in Iran and Afghanistan. She chose instead to remember her title as critic and attack someone, the prominent journalists and politicians at last night’s White House Correspondents Dinner.