Where is the controversy? Whitewashing history...

This article is the latest statement about the 9/11 memorial in Arizona. It is amazing to me why the Republicans in Arizona oppose a balanced view of history. Most of what is on the memorial is non-controversial as far as I can tell, but it does not comport to the whitewashed view of Republican history. The memorial rightly points out some of the mistakes made by the Republican administration. It also highlights some of the violent responses to the attacks on Muslims in the US (and in the case of Phoenix attacks on Sikhs. Psssttt -- hey drunk racist rednecks Sikhs are not Muslims.)

At the end of the day, it is time for Democrats to stop playing nice and start hitting back hard on these issues. We can longer sit around and be polite as Republicans try to eviscerate our Constitutional rights and control history.

While this issue may not address a Constitutional right per se, it is certainly related to the idea that we protect the right of everyone to speak their mind and have their own ideas. Leaving only pro-war ideas and phrases on the monument (or rolling over and letting it happen) leaves the impression that the opposing ideas are offensive and wrong. While people on the right may believe that, they are wrong. The view points expressed on the monument are balanced and represent the mainstream diversity of opinion that exists in our state.

IF no one else will say it, let me be the first. Everyone that wants to change the monument and remove phrases that they personally find offensive (whether Liberal, Conservative or something else) is profoundly unamerican. Our country through its history has inhabited two contradictory realms. The first is hopeful, trusting in individual freedom, typified by the writers of the Constitution/the Bill of Rights, by the radical idea that "All men are created equal" and the idea that protecting minorities (both of opinion and other designations) and individual from tyranny is of the utmost importance. At least some of our founding fathers saw that freedom had a cost that was worth paying. This means that tolerating the ideas and actions of others can be uncomfortable, annoying, make you angry or sad, but they are worth protecting because none of us have the wisdom to regulate the ideas and writings of others.

The other historical path of our nation has been one of slavery, oppression and the high price paid for those that are different in thought or action. I don't write this as a condemnation as much as a cautionary tale. We are not immune to bad decision making, wrong thinking or sheer bullying. Protecting freedom is not easy, it requires vigilance.

To me the fight over the monument boils down to this, are we a nation that embraces each other, even our differences and finds more commonality than difference or are we now a nation constantly wedded to inane conflict and meaningless differentiation?

I believe that more freedom is better and more diversity of ideas is better. I don't fear the ideas of others even when they offend me.