Posted on 12/29/2003 9:18:12 AM PST by NorCoGOP
MESA, Ariz. -- There appears to be a trend emerging in modern Western society. It is something that has been noticeable in the past, but is something that I think has become more prominent and disturbing in recent years. It is the habit we have developed of sacrificing personal freedom and convenience in favor of increased security, almost always in reaction to an isolated incident which we are afraid to treat as such.
Periodically, and with alarming frequency, something tragic will happen that will be greatly publicized. Perhaps this event injures or kills a person or many people; and, whether it is the media-driven American people demanding a change or elected officials eager to look like they are making a difference, precautions are put in place which restrict those very American people to the point that such an event recurring is nearly impossible.
The most dramatic of these events, with the most far-reaching internal effects, has been the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. I recall when our leaders assured us that the best way to fight the terrorists ourselves was to continue to live our lives normally and enjoy the freedoms that our enemies would wish to take away from us.
But our fear became a far greater opponent to our freedoms than any band of calculating psychopaths could ever achieve. And so things began to change.
As if to protect us from the inevitable eventuality of further hijackings, soldiers with machine guns took the place of obnoxious airport metal detector attendants. All luggage needed to be unpacked, studied, and repacked before transport on a passenger jet. My small Swiss army knife was instantly transformed from a personal convenience to a deadly weapon for terrorist use. Racial profiling became a very real law enforcement technique. And I can't get on a plane without taking my shoes off at the terminal.
Is this our normal life? Am I safer in my flight because my family and friends can't come and meet me at the gate? How has America gotten through 70 years of commercial flight without needing machine guns at every terminal? Are someone's socks really a threat to the lives of everybody on that plane?
As if this wasn't enough, our leaders drafted and almost unanimously passed the USA Patriot Act, 342 pages of knee-jerk legislation which has been adequately covered by this publication. For our own good, they removed any privacy that we think we have in favor of allowing the government to take any measures it deems necessary to discern any malicious intent any of us may harbor. I believe that all who study this act will be stunned at the constitutional rights the act takes away.
I don't want to be that safe. And an event occurring doesn't necessarily make it any more likely to occur in the future. Someone blowing up a plane doesn't mean that "people blow up planes now." I don't expect it. I am not afraid of it. And no amount of gun-toting servicemen or phone-tapping FBI agents will make me less afraid.
No amount of security is worth my freedoms, nor is it worth my ability to lead a comfortable, normal life. We have no alternative but to build our world to accommodate normal people. We can and should take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from the dangerously insane. I think metal detectors are a great idea. But at some point we have done all that we can reasonably be expected to do and can only hope for the best.
For over 200 years, people have been giving their lives to obtain and protect necessary freedoms for the people of this country; because freedom is possibly the only commodity more precious than life itself.
Forget it. :-)
Have a good night Mr. Score, drive carefully.
Without looking it up, I believe their tents were burnt and they were chased out of town (DC).
Whatever abuse you come up with, it has happened before.
And that excuses it? Jews were put into ovens before. Does that make it OK if done today? Black children were sold into slavery just because their parents were slaves once too, so would it be OK if we did that today?
Fight the good fight--yes, that's great. We can and should do better and stuff like the breast-milk fiasco (one case--it hasn't become routine!) are horrible and must be condemned and stopped as much as possible.
Finally. Thank you.
///Gotta stop new///Minor problem in the house -- be back and will finish later///
There are those who say we have a drug problem in America. They say the problem destroys individuals and families. They say our civilization is at risk as a result of the substance abuse sweeping the country.
What they say is true, in a way. But the drug of choice is not a substance, and the pushers thereof are not independent entrepreneurs working outside and against our system of government. The drug dealer is our system of government, and it deals in the most destructive, and popular, narcotic in the history of mankind's experiment with governments.
That is to say, security.
We have learned over the thousands of years of diverse human civilization that most people will do almost anything for security. Most will tolerate tyranny and submit to dehumanizing philosophies to keep it. They will commit acts of violence and sell their bodies.
The pushers of security will likewise gladly slaughter millions and sell their souls to the evils of rationalization for the revenues, for the return on that sale is the sovereignty of a increasing population of addicts. Money? Money pales against the prospect of power over the very heart and mind of a nation.
You ask, the most sought after state of being is a drug? Let's examine it. Security gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling of contentment, a high. Lack of it produces fear, a withdrawal. Introducing security into a fearful situation erases the fear, a fix.
Fear affects our bodies and so does contentment. Both affect our states of mind and, in fact, alters our consciousness. The presence of security alters the state of our consciousnesses and euphorizes our bodies. To avoid fear and feel happy, most will pay a dear price. Add to this the further fact that security is not necessary for life, it just makes life more comfortable. Otherwise we would have to sleep with one eye open.
Everyone learns to avoid too much of a good thing the first time they overeat. Over the rest of life we proceed to learn that there can be too much of anything. Like any physical drug, an appropriate amount of security elevates the equality of life.
Also, like any physical drug, abuse leads to loss of choice and loss of self respect.
Incredible as it may sound, we can have too much security. Most of us have too much right now. We get it from the worst place possible: our elected representatives charged with making and administering the law. We are dipping our drinking water from a mud puddle called socialism, filled in meager amount, at election time by those same representatives.
Now, there is nothing at all wrong with being secure in your life, liberty and property. After all, the things we have been able to achieve when insulated from the jungle have brought much glory to God and much prosperity to mankind. But to lose the jungle entirely is to forget the beast that ever prowls at the periphery of civilization, to wander in its den and be consumed.
While this is a nation whose motto is "In God We Trust", and which exclamation appears on even our medium of exchange, we trust in the largess of corruptible human beings to deliver an inferior savior, welfare, whose lifetime is short and whose demise is not on the cross of devotion and sacrifice, but in the gutter of poverty.
This nation was founded on the principals of duty and honor, and a devotion to the eternal fount of prosperity in freedom and self determination. For our experiment to work, we must follow the laws and commandments from the Source of that fount, and depend on that Source. To this purpose, we set up a government.
Let us state the truth outright. God does not create governments; He creates us and we create governments. The sad and inescapable weaknesses and failings of government comes from its creator, and which weaknesses and failings we can count, every one, on Capitol Hill, with the promises of wealth without effort and freedom without sacrifice.
Beware the wisdom whose genesis resides within the human mind and whose mission is false security in safety, leisure and entertainment. Beware the path of least resistance, where the cobblestones are painted with the thinnest of imitation gold leaf. That way lies the womb of the Great Mother, and the price of admission is the integrity of the soul.
Read this:
|
http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html
to put a label -- "Jacksonian" on my approach to security. We will not fail if the government will trust us -- its citizens. We will fail if the government treats us like children (or sheep). Freedom will prevail in the end.
No he won't, because I'll be watching the whole thing and I'm a pretty good shot myself.
Who will be watching you?
It doesn't matter as long as I know I've done the right thing.
Which path would you rather follow, that of those on United Flight 93 who quickly organized themselves into a militia responsible for their ownselves, or those people aboard the other flights on 9/11 that thought they should leave everything to the police who would be waiting for them on the ground when they got back to the airport?
It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security."
I'm not fan of Bush, but he's the only sane game in town. Remember how close we came to having President Albert Gore
That brings up another issue. What happens if we do get another Clinton in the White House? Remember those 900 FBI files? What's the next Clinton going to do with the Patriot Act at his disposal?
the government, airlines, etc. will be sued if something happens and people think they didn't do enough to secure the flights.
If I'm on the jury "securing the flight" means giving the crew and law-abiding passengers the right to carry.
People take it as a given that disarming people makes everything more secure.
The moral majority, isn't, anymore. The Constitution is holding the rest of us together, but let's not kid ourselves that it governs the other half.
But the Constitution isn't intended to govern the people, it mostly restricts the Federal government. The way I read it, Adams was complaining that a government shackled by such a restrictive Constitution isn't strong enough to rule an unruly people. And he would be right if the Federal government were the only authority. But state and local government was barely restricted by the constitution (at least not until the 14th amendment, they say). And, most importantly, the people weren't restricted by the constitution either.
The trouble is that the Constitution is turned on it's head. Now the little old lady who advertises for a "Christian handyman" to live in her spare apartment gets fined for discrimination. People are scared to death of being sued for discrimination. Texaco is required to hire employees based on race.
We are left with the illusion that we are powerless, we must accept Muslims as tenants, as passengers, and fellow employees. So, for our safety, we must therefore give even more power to the Federal government to protect us.
The Constitution would work just fine if we were obey it and restore it to the original meaning.
Uhhm ... If the rest of the passengers are armed, what would be the difference?
On this hypothetical "Freedom Air", the "malevolent people" wouldn't have to disarm the flight attendant, they could bring their own guns, box-cutters, etc.
If you don't mind my asking, what does that have to do with what I said below?:
Why go from victim to criminal all in one fell-swoop?
What I said made a lot of sense. And FYI, no, I'm not British.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.