RDB- Role Reversal

In my first response to D’Souza, I asserted that it was absurd to place such strong blame for 9/11 on any one group of people. I said that it was unjust and too extreme to blame the liberals, and that the real reason for the attack was somewhere in the middle. Now, however, I take the other stance . . . that of D’Souza’s. Yes, the terrorist attack on 9/11 certainly does have many reasons. But in reality the Muslim hatred of America was “based on legitimate concerns, some based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left” (D’Souza 2).

((Conservatives and Liberals both come from an America united under a common flag and believes, but they have grown apart to represent opposing values))
While the conservatives and liberals seem quite similar in their roots as American founding ideals, there actually exist extensive differences. The split between liberals and conservatives divides not only politics into democrats and republicans but also all of society along moral lines. Key to the argument is the word “cultural.” The ideas of conservative or liberalism in the political arena has filtered down (or perhaps seeped up) to every level of society. They are mindsets that control how people make decisions and shape their lives. Synonyms of liberal include “generous,” “free,” “loose,” “broad-minded.” In my mind “liberal” is very positive since I am receiving a “liberal arts” education. ((Picture: people call education liberal)) On the other hand “conservative” brings to mind words like “traditional” and “moderated.” The positive connotations of words associated with “liberal” commonly confuse people when used in connection with democratic government. Yet as D’Souza points out, it is important to note that “liberalism and democracy are quite different [. . .] Liberalism means individual rights [while] democracy means majority rule” (D’Souza 258). I can thus see how D’Souza so forcefully defines the difference between conservatives and liberals.

((A broken heart is invisible but it can feel physical))
Indeed, although an armed terrorist still strikes fear in the hearts of everyone present, we must really fear liberals as they poison society with a war against our government. I know that emotional issues like relationship drama, gossip, death, bullying, and family separations can often be just as painful (in a different way) as being sick or scraping a knee. En emotional injury, in fact, is more frightening and daunting since it is invisible. One can usually fix an injury or take medicine for an illness, but the correct way to heal a broken heart or a low self-esteem is a mystery. Moreover, sometimes emotional pain manifests itself through physical illness. A friend of mine, for example, recently broke up with her boyfriend and became sick. Even the other week when my roommate coldly refused to acknowledge my existence, I at first mistakenly attributed a virus I had to the emotional pain she was causing me. The cultural left possesses the same mind set as such emotional problems. The invisible influences of anti-government, immorality, and rebelliousness of the liberals eat away at the health of our nation. Like D’Souza says, “the left derived from 9/11 the lesson that American foreign policy was to blame and therefore America was the enemy” (D’Souza 232). It seems that the American government faces an enemy abroad and at home.

Blame, therefore, can in fact be placed more heavily on one group than another. The large divisions that liberals cause in America definitely contributed and continue to contribute to the reasons the terrorists decided to attack on 9/11.

RDB Censorship

((The First Amendment reads “congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”))
Our country was founded on the basis of freedom: freedom from British rule, freedom from oppressiveness and authoritative regimes, freedom from the violence of the War for Independence. The First Amendment of our constitution—the very first article of the Bill of Rights— calls for freedom of speech. Clearly the founders of our country believed that the spirit of freedom was an imperative part of the backbone of America. Today, the freedom to reveal the truth, to artistically display opinions, and to protest live on as traditional American values. Despite what D’Souza may argue, freedom of expression is actually a very conservative idea because of its traditionalism. Why then, would we want to infringe upon the right to freedom of expression and break the back of American freedom?

The constitution speaks of “free speech” but we interpret speech to mean “expression.” This is because one cannot separate verbal communication from multimedia forms of expression such as the internet, television, movies, and printed articles. If I interpret Candidate A’s stance correctly, he or she opposes all censorship of popular culture multimedia only to the extent that America’s media is already censored today. If Candidate A is elected, the limited restrictions on sex and violence in place today will remain intact. Those restrictions on free expression, according to the government, are justified when the expression poses a threat to the government. Furthermore, freedom of expression is not authorizing complete debasement of morals when it comes to violence and sex. The court decision of Roth v United States (1957), for example, concludes that “implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.”[1]

D’Souza claims that the “liberal assault against family values in traditional cultures is typically conducted in the name of universal rights” (D’Souza 164). Yet, neither Candidate A nor the United States constitution is claiming that the right to freedom of expression is a universal value. D’Souza is correct in that “you can look in vain for [. . .] universal rights doctrines of the founding philosophers [but] you will not find them enumerated in the Declaration of Independence” (164). Nevertheless, there exists a direct link between freedom of speech and a working democracy.

Freedom of expression promotes a dynamic exchange and growth among individuals and marketplaces. It is a means of participation in government and a way for people to feel in-control of their lives. As long as that free speech does not harm anyone, then it is okay. Thus if sex or violence, in moderation, is the means to express oneself, then they should not be censored.
((Democracy already is a challenge, and censorship would increase that challenge by breaking the link between freedom of expression and democracy))

I sometimes agree with D’Souza in that the “depravity of American culture is defended and protected by the new liberal morality” (146). As many people have already mentioned in their DB’s, turning on a TV to lurid sex scenes and gory violence is not pleasant or moral. But people do indeed have the freedom of choice not to watch.

((Violence was a shocking and vivid part of Nazi Germany, a censored movie would be unable to show a scene similar to this))

In fact, some sex and violence are necessary to tell a story or to get an idea across. A movie or show about Nazi Germany, for example, would not be accurate without harsh instances of violence. Sexual undertones even seem essential for a show about, perhaps, Henry XIII with all his sexual escapes and wives. Violence and sex are a part of life, and although we may glean inaccurate ideas about them from uncensored shows, I think it is better to have them in expression than not. Hopefully people do not get their entire world view from multimedia. Parents, teachers, mentors, older siblings, or friends serve a practical purpose to help mediate ideas about sex and violence that people learn from the media. And as to the pornography that several people speak of, I definitely agree that such “obscenity” should be censored to an extent.
Indeed, it already is. So by electing Candidate A we would maintain the traditional American freedom of expression, and maintain the limited censorship already in place.

[1] “Decision: Roth v. United States (1957)” http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/speech/bldec_RothUS.htm . (accessed February 11, 2008).

RDB 1

((Many things caused the industrial revolution))
I think it is absurd to blame any specific group for 9/11. Multiple things affect and cause almost every situation in life. Why else would we learn about the broad causes of, say, the Industrial Revolution in history class? Certain occurrences may have a greater influence than others upon an event, but I can think of no situation in which responsibility lies with only one thing or person. After reading part of D’Souza’s argument I do see that liberals hold some responsibility for 9/11. But conservatives, past and present Presidents, other countries, and religious leaders also (if we must blame) hold responsibility for those terrible terrorist attacks and American hatred. It was not only “the abortionists, the feminist, the homosexual activists, and the secularists” (D’Souza, 5) that influenced 9/11. Rather it was a muddled combination of countless things that can never be tallied or pointed too. I think that while D’Souza touches on many valid issues and reasons for 9/11, in reality there is a middle ground and that his views, even if they were blaming another group besides liberals, are too extreme.


I appreciate that D’Souza at least explains why he so vehemently blames liberals. Buried amongst the blaming I also learned new points about the Muslim world. I think that I must take any facts imbedded in his argument with caution since they could be shaped to fit a point. Nevertheless, I have never understood the different divisions amongst Muslims in the Middle East, so I found it helpful when D’Souza explains that “the real divide in the Muslim world is between Islamic radicals and traditional Muslims” (D’Souza 93) and then explain the divide. I like that he points out the overuse and misunderstanding of the word “fundamentalist.” The ambiguity of it not being a “useful term of distinction”(93) seemed similar to our need to define certain intangible terms such as “religion” and “abstract” often used in this World Lit class. I also find it interesting and very true that the Muslim world is not opposed to technology although we often like to think of them as hating America because of our advancement. The point that the insurgents, not terrorism, are the enemy also seemed very accurate. D’Souza backs up his arguments with references to interviews, events, articles, and facts and for that reason I admire how he writes his book.


((Red vs Blue America: Conservative vs Liberal America))
Still, D’Souza states that the “enemy [the liberals] at home [are] far more consequential and frightening than the enemy abroad” (D’Souza 13). Personally, I find a fundamentalist terrorist who would like nothing better than to blow himself up a little scarier than a fellow American who has only slightly different believes than me. And those slight difference in beliefs are all we are really talking about when people refer to “liberals” and “conservatives.” I think that most American citizens hold similar values, and it is only certain hot-topic issues and ideas about how to implement policies that make the liberal-conservative divide. D’Souza argues that “American popular culture is, for the most part, liberal culture” and that the “values it celebrates—such as openness, diversity, and the uninhibited cultivation of individuality—are liberal values” (D’Souza 123). I do not think that those values are only liberal, they are actually very traditional, and therefore, conservative values. Thus there is more a middle ground than an extreme slant upon which to blame one group of people. Similarly, although D’Souza claims that we view the “War on Terror” with an ethnocentric view, so too do other countries and everyone else . . . “through the lens of their assumptions and beliefs” (D’Souza 72).


Thus D’Souza makes some good points. He just needs to stop so strongly blaming one group of people and realize that the blame, if blame needs to be laid anywhere, belongs somewhere in the middle.