By Bela Suhayda
Sugar Grove, Ill.
I read with some interest, then humor, Wayne Johnson’s account of what, in his opinion, I had written in the December 30 issue of The Voice, thevoice.us/probing-reactions-to-readers-voice-on-kenosha-shooter, concerning Kyle Rittenhouse and what transpired the fateful night, August 25, 2020 what the 17-year- old, at the time, did to defend himself against those who were trying to kill him. As I read through Wayne’s rebuttal on page 6 in the January 6 edition of The Voice, to my defense of Kyle’s self-defense, I was shocked by the lack of research Mr. Johnson demonstrated in his article.
Mr. Johnson finished his scathing article reciting a poignant story of a teacher sage he respected who drove the idea across to his class, a person cannot have opinions about things unless they thoroughly understand both sides of an argument. In fact the exact words of this social studies teacher were, “if you don’t exhaustively know both sides, you are not entitled to an opinion.” Unfortunately, poor Wayne did not heed his teacher’s advice, or his advice to me in this regard.”
I disagree wholeheartedly with Wayne’s teacher using this language, and in that process, stifle classroom debate by suggesting students’ need to know both sides of a story before voicing their opinion. I always welcomed debate in my classes, if for no other reason than students can learn to respect how their classmates might think differently from them. I am a free-speech proponent. We cannot predict from where good evidence may come. Without free speech we get thought control not democracy. I disagree you must have in-depth knowledge on both sides of an argument to have an opinion. It certainly helps to make GOOD arguments however.
It is very ironic Wayne knows almost nothing of the facts of the Rittenhouse case…yet quotes the teacher who would have told him “I don’t want to hear it.”
Wayne suggests I was perfectly fine with Kyle “loading up his A.R.-15, and going to Wisconsin to supposedly defend property.” Wrong: I was not fine with it…but I did make a case for the necessity of defending his own life, and the lives and property of others when law enforcement had been made to stand down and the National Guard refused. Johnson suggests Kyle’s mother drove him to Wisconsin to a Black Lives Matter Rally in Kenosha. Wrong: Kyle drove himself, and it was no rally, it was a riot with cars and buildings on fire.
Wayne suggests one of his parents gave Kyle the A.R. Wrong: A friend of his in Wisconsin gave Kyle the gun in Wisconsin, not in Illinois. The gun did not cross State lines. Wayne calls the Rittenhouse family: “A bigoted and racist family.” but offers no evidence for his vile words. An inconvenient fact, Mr. Johnson. Kyle is a BLM supporter. Fact-check all of it. I already have.
Mr. Johnson called me naive for not thinking 18-year olds possessing A.R.’s “are looking for a chance to use them.” His evidence… I should know because I’ve gone through puberty and was once an 18-year-old.
The only 18-year-olds I knew using these weapons at that age were in Vietnam. And we all know why those 18 year olds were using them. Then Wayne accused me of being naive. I almost cried!! At the tender age of seven, I was escaping across the Hungarian/Austrian border to avoid landmines and Soviet nnipers who would have shot my family and me dead had they seen us from their towers along the border. I was doing it when Wayne and other American kids were coloring in coloring books. I learned the dangers of this world very young. An uncle of mine was burned alive by the commies in Yugoslavia for thinking he could practice free speech. I have no illusions about man’s inhumanity towards his fellow man.
Wayne calls me a right wing conspiracy theorist, then offers no examples.
He calls me an anti-vaxxer, yet according to my vaccination card, I’ve been vaccinated. Hmmm.
Wayne thinks he knows it all. But I think his social studies teacher would have said “I don’t want to hear it,” when Wayne wrote his January 6 article.