Thanks to Karen Johnson?

The Arizona Republic has this article about the death of the bill attempting to change the 9/11 memorial. Karen Johnson was the deciding vote. It is sad when Karen Johnson is the voice of reason for Republican Party.

I really liked the Party of Goldwater better than the modern incarnation. At least those guys cared about our Constitutional rights (some of the time)...

Here is her reasoning:

"Besides, this monument was done by private individuals with private money. And I think that everybody is entitled to their opinion. If it is offensive to someone else, well, I thought that we had First Amendment rights in this country. I'm not happy with all the sayings on there, but I liked some of the ones that they wanted to remove."Among those, she said, were "Fear of foreigners" and "Feeling of invincibility lost.""Really," Johnson said, "weren't we afraid of foreigners after this happened? We may still be. And does anybody feel now that America is invincible? I don't have a problem with that.

Although I can understand how some people do."In the end, that's exactly why the memorial should stay as it is - confusing, controversial, forlorn, infuriating - because after all these years, that's still how 9/11 makes us feel.

Censorship is such a lonely word...

This article from Arizona Republic outlines the latest attempt to change the 9/11 memorial to reflect the right-wing's infantile view of history. I wish I knew the answer to the question of why the Legislature has the power to do this?

Built with $500,000 in private donations, its sweeping design of concrete and steel includes rubble from the World Trade Center and Pentagon and dust from
the Pennsylvania field where the final hijacked plane crashed. Sunlight passes through 54 inscriptions laser-cut into the memorial's cylindrical face, making
the phrases visible on the concrete below.

I cannot understand why a privately funded monument would not be protected by the First Amendment? The word censorship is thrown around a lot just like fascism and Nazi, but this truly is censorship. When the government seeks editorial control over a privately funded project, it is textbook censorship. It is OK for people to have different view points. People are not hurt by reading things with which they disagree.

Every member of the legislature who voted for this bill is not only unpatriotic, but also cares nothing for the rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

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.