This is for the 2,977 Americans who lost their lives on September 11, 2001.
On this day 9 years ago I was in high school. In my first class of the day I heard one of my fellow classmates talking about a dumb pilot who crashed into a building. It didn't sound serious. My next class was social studies, and the teacher had a TV in the room and told us that instead of our regular lesson plan, we were going to watch the news. It was then that I saw that it was no small plane that hit. The first tower was smoking, and the news anchors were trying to figure out what happened. As they were talking, a second plane came in a hit the other tower. 2,977 Americans were murdered that day.
The chaos, the rubble, people running through the streets. The worst thing I've witnessed in my life is those towers collapsing. Lives snuffed out in an instant. I can't imagine what those people felt. I cannot possibly know what it felt like to be at work, and suddenly have a plane hit the building. Even if you survived the initial crash, trying to get out amidst the panic. Would any of them been aware enough to realize the building was going to collapse upon them? 2,977 Americans.
19 terrorists died that day. Those 19, and those who have since been killed, are not enough to make up for what they did that day. I am glad we went after the terrorists, but I am not glad that we haven't followed through to the full extent. Starting with Vietnam, we have been trying to fight politically correct wars. The trouble with that is that there is no way to win a war with political correctness. Innocent people will die, innocent people did die, including 2,977 Americans.
What determines innocence? What determines guilt? The hijackers are guilty of murder and terrorism. The terrorists who planned and organized it are guilty. And, those people that stood by and let terrorists thrive in their country are guilty. If the terrorists are hiding in hospitals and mosques in hopes that our armed forces won't bomb them for fear of harming the 'innocent,' we should bomb the hell out of those places (only if we know terrorists are hiding in them). Is that a bit harsh and cold? Not only is it not as harsh as killing 2,977 Americans for no reason, but it is justified.
If the citizens of Afghanistan weren't aware how evil terrorists are and allowed them to stay in their country, they must be taught. Every action has a reaction. If you allow your country to foster terrorism, and that terrorism costs the lives of innocents, you are partly to blame. The only people in the world who understand this principle are Americans. Americans wanted no part of the repressive and evil nature of the King of England, so we took on the biggest army in the world. You know what England learned? They learned that the greatest power in the world is not how big your army is, but that the greatest power in the world is freedom. A freedom which was taken from 2,977 Americans on September 11, 2001.
The people of the middle, after hearing the news of the attacks, were not appalled and they did not immediately try to purge their region of evil. Some leaders condemned the attacks, but others said that America got what it deserved. Some fired their weapons in the air to celebrate, and some danced in the streets. Every human has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 2,977 Americans were denied that right.
In order to make sure something this terrible never happens again on American soil, we have to show no mercy. Political correctness is all about mercy and tolerance. Political correctness is our modus operandi. We don't need to bomb them until they can't be bombed anymore, we need to bomb them until they understand never to attack us again. If you have any qualms about my stance, I encourage you to watch United 93 (2006, Paul Greengrass). It is such a powerful film that I only watched it once, in theaters. I own it, but I'm not sure I could handle watching it again. It is the most emotional film I have ever seen. People were sobbing in the theater, I was sobbing in the theater. 2,977 Americans weren't alive to sob in the theater.
I remember where I was, where were you when 2,977 Americans were murdered? As Americans, as people, as humans, we cannot forget what happened on this day 9 years ago. We must defend our unalienable rights. We cannot allow evil to survive. We must be strong.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Subtlety of Censorship
The truth is that words matter. We write things a certain way because it means something different than if we were to write it another way. Luckily, in America we have the First Amendment, which is supposed to prohibit the government from making any law to infringe upon our freedom of speech. Here is what it says, as our Founding Father's wrote it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Unfortunately, here in America, Congress is breaking the law.
When did it start? The first attempt was in 1798 by President Adams and the Alien And Sedition Acts. This law didn't beat around the bush. If you opposed any U.S. law or spoke out against the president or congress, you were to be jailed for up to two years. This law was eventually allowed to expire. Since then, congress has tried to strip us of our free speech. Since then, they have succeeded.
Of course, these days it's all about the art of being subtle. Do we think twice when we listen to the radio and hear the edited versions of songs? Some of us even defend the censorship of music, saying that words like that shouldn't be listened to by children. I say it's up to the parents to decide what their children listen to. When we watch TV, well, any TV that isn't a premium cable channel, we think nothing of censorship. Should inappropriate language, themes and situations be censored? If you answered yes, who determines what is appropriate?
I'm all for not allowing children to watch R rated movies, or adult television shows, or listen to explicit songs. But that is the responsibility of the parents, not the government. We have rating upon rating on music, television, and film, but as far as I'm aware, there are no ratings on books. An elementary school kid can go to the library and check out Mein Kampf. Over the history of our country, many books been banned, and those have been overturned. Other forms of media have not enjoyed the same amount of protection that books have enjoyed.
If all books are appropriate, why aren't all songs, TV shows, and videos? Are those types of media more subversive than others? Books are seen by many as 'pure.' While music and videos have the negative stereotype of being for lazy people. Because of this, the government managed to sink its teeth into these forms of media. What if the government is after more than just media?
The government is after all free speech, no matter what form it takes or who utters it, publishes it, posts it, or records it. The Patriot Act, signed into law by George Bush, changed the definition of terrorism to be so broad that this blog could be considered terrorism. Section 802 of the US Patriot Act changes Section 2331 of Title 18 of the United States Code to read, "The term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that... appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Read more here.
Now, this blog is not intimidating anyone, and you could argue that it's not coercing anyone either. Intimidation is a stretch, but my blog does fall under coercion. According to Merriam-Webster, to coerce is to, "to compel to an act or choice." Under the Patriot Act, I could be tried as a domestic terrorist. How did this bill get passed? How have any of the recent bills been passed? The health care bill? Prior to the health care vote, Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." The same was true with the Patriot Act. Only one senator, Russ Feingold (D-WI), opposed it, based on, "[Attorney General Ashcroft] provided the text of the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the end of the week. That was plainly impossible." He was the only politician to say he didn't have time to read it. If he didn't have time to read it, did any of his colleagues?
The government preys on the citizens, using fear as their primary motivator. After 9/11, they passed the Patriot Act to 'protect' us. At least, that's what they claimed. Upon further examination, they passed the Patriot Act to strip us of our freedoms, to infringe on the first and fourth amendments. They used fear to exploit our faith. Our faith that the primary job of the government is to protect its citizens from harm. If there is one thing that history has taught me, it's that the only person I can count on to protect me is myself. I have no faith in the government. They will not censor this citizen.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
When did it start? The first attempt was in 1798 by President Adams and the Alien And Sedition Acts. This law didn't beat around the bush. If you opposed any U.S. law or spoke out against the president or congress, you were to be jailed for up to two years. This law was eventually allowed to expire. Since then, congress has tried to strip us of our free speech. Since then, they have succeeded.
Of course, these days it's all about the art of being subtle. Do we think twice when we listen to the radio and hear the edited versions of songs? Some of us even defend the censorship of music, saying that words like that shouldn't be listened to by children. I say it's up to the parents to decide what their children listen to. When we watch TV, well, any TV that isn't a premium cable channel, we think nothing of censorship. Should inappropriate language, themes and situations be censored? If you answered yes, who determines what is appropriate?
I'm all for not allowing children to watch R rated movies, or adult television shows, or listen to explicit songs. But that is the responsibility of the parents, not the government. We have rating upon rating on music, television, and film, but as far as I'm aware, there are no ratings on books. An elementary school kid can go to the library and check out Mein Kampf. Over the history of our country, many books been banned, and those have been overturned. Other forms of media have not enjoyed the same amount of protection that books have enjoyed.
If all books are appropriate, why aren't all songs, TV shows, and videos? Are those types of media more subversive than others? Books are seen by many as 'pure.' While music and videos have the negative stereotype of being for lazy people. Because of this, the government managed to sink its teeth into these forms of media. What if the government is after more than just media?
The government is after all free speech, no matter what form it takes or who utters it, publishes it, posts it, or records it. The Patriot Act, signed into law by George Bush, changed the definition of terrorism to be so broad that this blog could be considered terrorism. Section 802 of the US Patriot Act changes Section 2331 of Title 18 of the United States Code to read, "The term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that... appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Read more here.
Now, this blog is not intimidating anyone, and you could argue that it's not coercing anyone either. Intimidation is a stretch, but my blog does fall under coercion. According to Merriam-Webster, to coerce is to, "to compel to an act or choice." Under the Patriot Act, I could be tried as a domestic terrorist. How did this bill get passed? How have any of the recent bills been passed? The health care bill? Prior to the health care vote, Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." The same was true with the Patriot Act. Only one senator, Russ Feingold (D-WI), opposed it, based on, "[Attorney General Ashcroft] provided the text of the bill the following Wednesday, and urged Congress to enact it by the end of the week. That was plainly impossible." He was the only politician to say he didn't have time to read it. If he didn't have time to read it, did any of his colleagues?
The government preys on the citizens, using fear as their primary motivator. After 9/11, they passed the Patriot Act to 'protect' us. At least, that's what they claimed. Upon further examination, they passed the Patriot Act to strip us of our freedoms, to infringe on the first and fourth amendments. They used fear to exploit our faith. Our faith that the primary job of the government is to protect its citizens from harm. If there is one thing that history has taught me, it's that the only person I can count on to protect me is myself. I have no faith in the government. They will not censor this citizen.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)