Independence Day.
Well the Fourth is over and I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday! I know I did. I got to spend some quality time with friends and family, and even made some new friends, which is pretty cool.
But that aside, while celebrating The Fourth I started thinking about our freedom and how we came to be where we are. Over two hundred years ago, our people came to this land hoping for something better and whenever someone tried to stand in the way of our newfound freedom, we fought to the death to protect it. So why are we so willing to give it up now?
Some would argue -in the light of 9/11 and other tragedies- that losing a few freedoms is worth the extra feeling of security, but is it? And did it really start with 9/11?
I think the mindset started with our knowledge of the Civil War. While it was necessary at the time, people look back on that and think of how hard it would be to fight against fellow Americans again. Then you have Vietnam, a totally bogus war that changed the way we look at war altogether. It makes us skeptical as to whether any type of uprising would be the best course of action.
And then there’s the bits and pieces that we’ve seen recently: Oklahoma, which sufficiently drove the malitia back underground; Columbine, which made us feel the need for stricter gun control; 9/11, which made us feel that it’s OK to give up our privacy (that along with companies like Nexus Lexus that have been keeping tabs on everything we do for "advertising" reasons, not to mention the IRS keeping tabs.) And those are just a few, all combined to make us doubt whether our previous freedoms are worth it, and discourage us from fighting for them.
But when do we say enough is enough? We want our freedoms back!
And how do we say it? And how do we decide on what freedoms we want, when so many think that their own issues are more important than others? I made a statement before about how the govt has us fighting so much amongst ourselves, that we don’t even know what’s right and what’s important anymore. How do we decide on what’s worth dying for when we have so many issues and so many different viewpoints on those issues?
Our Constitution pointed out some pretty important features of freedom, but what happens when it becomes nothing more than an historic document that can be changed at will? Have we become so self absorbed with the little things that we’ve totally missed the big picture? Our freedoms have been systematically taken away from us, and we just sit back and finds ways to justify it.
Is that to be our future?
Questions, questions, questions! For which I have no answers. But I do feel the need to find some before the situation gets totally out of hand (if it hasn’t already.) I know I'm not the only one who’s afraid of what has been happening in our country, but how do we change it when another civil war is seemingly out of the question and protesting no longer guarantees results?
But that aside, while celebrating The Fourth I started thinking about our freedom and how we came to be where we are. Over two hundred years ago, our people came to this land hoping for something better and whenever someone tried to stand in the way of our newfound freedom, we fought to the death to protect it. So why are we so willing to give it up now?
Some would argue -in the light of 9/11 and other tragedies- that losing a few freedoms is worth the extra feeling of security, but is it? And did it really start with 9/11?
I think the mindset started with our knowledge of the Civil War. While it was necessary at the time, people look back on that and think of how hard it would be to fight against fellow Americans again. Then you have Vietnam, a totally bogus war that changed the way we look at war altogether. It makes us skeptical as to whether any type of uprising would be the best course of action.
And then there’s the bits and pieces that we’ve seen recently: Oklahoma, which sufficiently drove the malitia back underground; Columbine, which made us feel the need for stricter gun control; 9/11, which made us feel that it’s OK to give up our privacy (that along with companies like Nexus Lexus that have been keeping tabs on everything we do for "advertising" reasons, not to mention the IRS keeping tabs.) And those are just a few, all combined to make us doubt whether our previous freedoms are worth it, and discourage us from fighting for them.
But when do we say enough is enough? We want our freedoms back!
And how do we say it? And how do we decide on what freedoms we want, when so many think that their own issues are more important than others? I made a statement before about how the govt has us fighting so much amongst ourselves, that we don’t even know what’s right and what’s important anymore. How do we decide on what’s worth dying for when we have so many issues and so many different viewpoints on those issues?
Our Constitution pointed out some pretty important features of freedom, but what happens when it becomes nothing more than an historic document that can be changed at will? Have we become so self absorbed with the little things that we’ve totally missed the big picture? Our freedoms have been systematically taken away from us, and we just sit back and finds ways to justify it.
Is that to be our future?
Questions, questions, questions! For which I have no answers. But I do feel the need to find some before the situation gets totally out of hand (if it hasn’t already.) I know I'm not the only one who’s afraid of what has been happening in our country, but how do we change it when another civil war is seemingly out of the question and protesting no longer guarantees results?
posted by RT at 7:52 AM
9 Comments:
We should just get everyone a nice, cold beer and say "CHILL THE FUCK OUT, MAN!"
Alright, enough sarcasm already from the Matty D.
I think that one of the side effects of the the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era was that those not into the whole protesting thing were kinda turned off by the protesters. Case in point, while probably not mainstream, there were those protesting the Vietnam war who would parade around banners in support of Ho Chi Minh and such; ignoring the fact that Minh was a despotic murderer.
This is very similar to the videos you can see online where protesters against the Iraq war were saying things such as "If a dictator gives free healthcare, I like that dictator" and etc (www.protestwarrior.com). Now, I realize that I just cited a biased source, but its absolutely appalling to me that there are those who would claim to like Saddam Hussein simply for the apparent reason that they A. don't like President Bush and B. oppose the war.
I am not stating my stance on the war, but what I am not a fan of are simple jingles in the place of reasoned debate, protesters who exalt proven murderous dictators while damning a democratically elected president (ok, that might be another debate for some, but I'm going on the principle here), and other blatant demonstrations of hypocrisy.
For example, if most haven't figured it out yet, I am a little more than conservative than others in my views, but the thing that gets me the most is the liberals' claimed goal of tolerance. I believe in tolerance. I feel that everybody deserves respect regardless. However, what I cannot respect is what I have experienced with regard to the tolerance ideal set forth. It seems only to apply to certain groups of society; tolerance for conservative ideas is non-existent over at UCSC. You would expect that in a university, a school of high education where critical thought is meant to be held high, it has instead fallen to a state of tolerating only those dominant opinions on campus (those more on the left side) and shouting down any opposing opinions, regardless of their merit.
So, RT, I know that I went way off on a tangent here, but once you get a Political Science major with ADD going, well, you're gonna get a rant and a half. I kinda left your security thing alone for the most part, but what I was going for was that my experience tells me that protesters tend more to the jingoistic, and tend to lean against more reasoned debate. Noise seems more important in their message rather than substance, and anything that contradicts that noise is met with more noise, and shouted down.
My question from this line of thought is, what good are jingoistic chants to the furthering of democracy and higher ideals of liberty, freedom, justice, and etc?
I couldn't agree more, Matty! And I'm not even a Political Science major... Although the ADD is probably true enough :o) (Or maybe it's just too much java?)
Anyway.
What you say kind of plays along with what I said about not knowing what is right anymore. Protest used to play a very important role in the way our govt worked -women's right to vote, black's right to... well... BE an American and not just a piece of property, labor unions, and even the protest about the Vietnam war- but now, like you said, it seems to be just a noisy outlet for anyone with a grievance... And educating yourself in why you even have the grievance isn't even a factor sometimes!
We all have issues that we take to heart, but is forming a major protest really the way to deal with each and every issue? With so many, we do get tired of hearing them and tend to tune them out, including those that may have serious consequences on our civil liberties.
But how do you get the people who just want to argue to understand that?
For me, I started asking the same kind of questions after I started seeing all the reactions to the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake halftime show. I mean, that kind of crap is all over the place. What’s the big deal?
After that, the FCC starts to clamp down with vague and fuzzy rules that no one can really understand. Heck, they scared Howard Stern - he's running to satellite radio.
My issue? he FCC is now telling me what I can and can't see and hear. That scares me.
I think that the FCC in that case put the blame on the wrong, uh, entity.
Yeah, you see sex in advertising and all that stuff. However, what happened in that instance was that Justin/Janet took advantage of the system, knowing that 90 million people would be watching. Probably their biggest show ever, so they did a dirty little publicity stunt. Unfortunately, CBS, who obviously acted quickly to divert away from the "breast emancipation," was the entity who got stuck with the $5 million bill.
Janet and Justin, if anyone were to get busted, should have been the ones fined.
BTW! Before I get toasted here, I just wanted to make it clear that I am NOT against protest. I think protest are a wonderful way of expressing your concerns and making yourself heard. I just think that some of them could be better thought out, and not so blindly followed.
I agree with many stances here. I think that during times of national attention civil liberties will be constrained. Things do lighten up after but I can see some reasons for it. I can't cite anything in the Patriot Act that has adversely affected my everyday life. The idea of keeping track of who buys and checks out books (the Quran or Catcher In The Rye) is outright nutty to me. I think that if I felt it was an problem, I'd go to the library to read the books or buy them with cash at Borders.
Martin, you know I love you and I value your opinion, but one thing you said really stood out to me and I feel the need to comment. You said, "I can't cite anything in the Patriot Act that has adversely affected my everyday life."
I've seen this viewpoint taken by others and I've even used it myself, but after reading another viewpoint "It's easy to curb the freedoms of others when you see no immediate impact on your own." I have to change the way I look at this. And I hope you will too.
I realize that there are some issues that we feel do not directly affect us (I could care less about the FCC now because I'm personally selective about what I watch on TV anyway) but we need to make a stand on even those issues because they may eventually indirectly affect us all. An example: I may not care if they ban boob shots of Janet Jackson on public television, but if we give them too much power, the FCC may decide to ban footage of the Bermuda Triangle in the future because it's considered hearsay and possibly dangerous to those who want to explore it... A long shot for sure, but what if?
Do you see what I'm saying? What's important to me may not be important to someone else, but it's our duty to defend each others rights. If we want to protect our own freedoms from the govt (who rarely gives them back,) we have to be willing to give up a few on a personal level... Because those freedoms can always be debated, and gotten back.
Don't get me wrong, I actually am against my civil liberties being taken from me. I just compare it to martial law being declared. It usually isn't how things will continue to operate. I think that's why the fact that the Act has to be renewed relieves me. If the provision for renewal is again added, it will affirm my belief that it isn't a permanent adjustment to our privacy laws. There are tons of reasons not to allow it to continue. Many government agencies have been using it outside the original purpose.
Excellent question Jill!
Yes, at one time, we enjoyed many freedoms. But in all honesty, we've lost more perceived freedoms than actual freedoms.
My main gripe is the loss of my freedom of privacy. I realize that not many are concerned with privacy from the govt (the loss is worth the added feeling of security,) but I just don't like it and I don't feel comfortable with it.
Post a Comment
<< Home