POLITICS

Flying in the face of fear

POLITICS Greg Starks

We are all in this together.
We have been subjected for the past weeks to a call to arms against an enemy that we do not know and cannot readily find. There is some comfort in the fact that nearly every government on Earth has joined to combat this ominous threat to civilization and its habitat. Still, this assault will change the way we all live in many ways. Our success will depend on our attention to Mr. Jefferson’s adage, "Vigilance is the price of freedom."

Sober, rational evaluations of economic risk will be important to the maintenance of stable economic and social systems. Wild, unfounded fears could seriously harm a too-fragile economy and trigger senseless vigilante behavior. Just as it was the resourcefulness and will of the citizen-soldiers who manned the front lines in World War II, we are going to have to use our heads now to preserve our way of life.

Fear of flying is not only stupid, it’s harmful.
The airline industry, at least until two weeks ago, represented 10 percent of the U.S. GNP. Since all passengers would draw and quarter any prospective hijacker, airplanes remain by far the safest mode of travel. The irrational fear of flight and the consequent harm to the airline industry is precisely what Bin Laden was looking for. Go fly.

National security is relative.
We are being told that we are preparing to fight to maintain our national security, preserve civilization and, most remarkably, to eradicate evil. Some would say that these are overly lofty goals, particularly the last one. The National Security Act of 1947 essentially created a secret government to engage in the fight against those who would seek to destroy the institutions of government.
We must remember that the first use of this act was to commit internal purges, essentially nullifying the First and Fifth Amendments with the Red Scare, needlessly and inexcusably damaging many innocent American lives in the process. Liberty and security must remain interdependent, for what is the use of a nation that sacrifices the former in the name of the latter?

Liberty vs. Security is a false dichotomy.
The core element that underlies the concept of national security is the preservation of the way of life outlined in the Constitution. The ability of the citizen to privately carry out his or her lawful affairs without fear of governmental oversight or reprisal is among the most fundamental of our rights.

Outside the basic expectations of privacy, which have been threatened for decades, there are elements of our everyday lives that we have enjoyed for years that will be curtailed. We must be vigilant in our defense of our core privacy. Its maintenance depends upon us all to not allow our vigilance to be overcome by fear.

Our highest duty in preserving the national security has been clearly demonstrated over the past quarter century to be eliminating our dependency on petroleum. The best thing that we could do to advance our interests in the Middle East would be to abandon it, making Jerusalem a city of the world, perhaps under U.N. jurisdiction.

We can no longer depend on public servants to serve and keep us secure on their own. We must all be watchful, less the forces of evil overcome those of good. The battle is joined and distributed to us all. We are all soldiers. We must be our brother’s keeper.
Let us not succumb to the concept of a Crusade, being mindful that Western armies killed more Christians than "infidels" during their journeys in the Middle Ages.

Let us hope that the events of the past and coming days steel our will and provide us with the judgment and nerve that will be required to remain alert in the service of civilization during these trying times.
Let us not amend the Constitution either directly or in spirit by statute or executive order.
Let us remember that we best serve the interests of good by using our wits and enterprise for the benefit of all.Through steadfast vigilance, the good within us can prevail and ensure that our best days remain before us.
CP