Statue Of Liberty Should Be A Liberated Woman
One of the most comic irrationalities to come out of the Vietnam War was that a village had to be destroyed in order to save it. Half a world away, the comment has become something of a joke ever since epitomizing government stupidity; however, as similar logic begins to be used here all in the name of national security, such an observation won’t seem as amusing anymore.
Most responding to my column about efforts to permanently bar the American people from the upper reaches of the Statue of Liberty agreed with my position. However, one response reflected the kind of thinking that will not only end up getting the remainder of our freedoms taken away from us but also lecture us why it is our civic duty to have a smile across our face while it is happening.
In the response, the government toady writes that, since the Statue of Liberty is a target because of its symbolic value as an artistic representation of America’s values, any and all measures should be taken to protect the landmark.
However, since Lady Liberty’s function is primarily symbolic, by closing her off aren’t we sending the message to the world that liberty is not an inalienable and immutable but rather contingent upon circumstances and the malleable whims of those holding power.
If the American people so easily cede control over something symbolic, what is to prevent them from handing over the more practical manifestations of their liberties should authorities whip them into a sufficient frenzy or panic?
For example, in his conclusion, this Department of Homeland Security booster remarks, “If it is OVERDONE, tis better me thinks so long as no place is given to the evil ones.â€
Should we place armed troops on every street corner allowed to manhandle passerbys at random? Better yet, should entire neighborhoods be relocated to designated civic detention facilities where authorities can keep better tabs on the population and thus protect them better; after all, if it prevents terrorism according to the Overdone Doctrine, on what grounds may we object?
Don’t think proponents of security beyond that which is necessary wouldn’t be above curtailing those rights that have little bearing whatsoever on preventing mass destruction.
The critic writes, “To use her as your soapbox issue to point your finger and denigrate government simply out of your own opinion of its motivation is counterproductive, and limited it its veracity.â€
Frankly, the government denigrates itself when it directs so much effort at closing down one of America’s most cherished monuments rather than closing down the border. Maybe if the government did its job there, the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t need to be closed.
Yet, to those yearning not to live free but rather to have every facet of their lives monitored by authorities, pointing out such shortcomings and inconsistencies that compromise both our safety and quality of life is no longer characterized as the act of a concerned citizen but rather as deeds “counterproductive†that “undermine the population’s confidenceâ€. In other words, freedom of expression is something that will have to be curtailed as a threat to national security even though pointing out the shortcomings and fallacies of those wielding power threatens no one other than those incompetently wielding the power the people have been gracious enough to grant them under the Constitution.
As an American icon, one’s attitude towards the management of the Statue of Liberty says a great deal about one’s perspective. Either one believes in the basic principles the Statue stands for and believes the American people should be granted access to it or one believes that people are better off having the government control the minutest details of their lives and that common citizens are not good enough to caresses this special lady.
by Frederick Meekins
| More from Frederick Meekins
Stumble It!
February 6th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I admit I’m stupid. I only subscribe to things that make sense without leaps of faith. Beleive whatever you want at home, but in the public domain have some allegiance for the common survival. In a country where there really is no longer any alliegence other than consumption of consumer goods, subversive elements ranging from the peanut butter and jelly liberation front to the more reality based kill you and take all your females and stuff criminal factions, this strict adherance to theoretical constructs that clearly cant work is puzzling.
Whatever.
Clear lack of borders for an entire country or a highly symbolic cultural icon in a time of expressed dulture warfare should insure that another smoking heap will be the likely outcome. The horse is out of the barn regardless, it’s just a matter of when. I’m still wondering just why the phrase emblazoned at the base of the old girl has become an unassailable imperative.
Who exactly gave those Frenchies the power to draft our immigration mission statement?..
February 7th, 2007 at 5:21 am
A very famous American once said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” That sentiment holds true today more than ever in all facets of life.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:27 am
I think if Lady Liberty were truly symbolic of America today, we would make the following changes:
- Hike up her skirt to reveal crotchless panties
- Spread her legs apart
- Have three fatherless and abused children at her side
- Outstretch her arm and hand in a demand for money
- Have the three fathers of the three children smashed beneath her feet – one in prison, one homeless, and one dead
- Have a family law judge resting one one shoulder and a neo-Marxist feminist on the other
- Have a politician and a PC media pundit declaring her a victim
- Move her from New York to Tijuana, or from Ellis Island to the banks of Rio Grande
February 7th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Hey I like the hem-hike idea. Fashions change doncha know. A nice little flip skirt that gets lifted by the wind would bring cheer(s) to and from the crowds. But knickerless is going a bit too far. No thongs either. Just some nice demure pants to cover the cellulite. Got to have some dignity.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:16 am
…or just ship her back to France.
When the Trans Texas corridor is finished and we become a borderless nation much like the EU, the US will be unrecognizable. What will she stand for then?
We don’t have poor, huddled masses yearning for freedom. We have those who break the law to enter, those who aid and abet them by giving them jobs and lawmakers who allow them to stay and collect in social security and unemployment and if their children attend college they pay instate tuition.
Of those who break the law to get here, the numbers of those who wind up in prison are astronomical, and we are taking care of them.
Maybe Lady Liberty should be modified to show her bent over and taking one for the team?
February 7th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I’m suprised access hasn’t been restricted earlier, at least for men. The concept of allowing access under and to climb up her skirts is a virtual rape scenario.
Note: Sarcasm mode is ON
February 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“…Maybe if the government did its job there, the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t need to be closed.”
Ya think?! Oz. of prevention an’ all… But, hey, they’re gonna install tek-nawl-o-gee at the border now, so we’re good to go. Getting with the times, like the new Lady. Careful, though. Elevator eyes and gawks will be recorded and presented to male perps upon exiting the exhibit, which they will be obligated to purchase or else face charges of harassment.
Why not just have David Copperfield do one more trick with her, this time not bringing her back? Kinda how liberty goes anyways…