April 19

Freedom is worth dying for.

That's a statement just about any American would agree with; that's one of the justifications we use every time we learn of a soldier's death overseas; that's what makes the movie Braveheart so fucking awesome! That statement is true as balls. Freedom is worth ding for, and thus, worth fighting for.

But, sometimes I wonder if people lose sight of that when the context changes. I'm specifically thinking of coverage of the wackjob "Patriot" groups, American citizens who plot violence against their own country's government, "domestic terrorists."

It goes without saying (and as implied by my use of the word "wackjobs" above) that I wholeheartedly endorse the usually caveats about how unjustified and preposterous all of their actions are, but I am, apart from that, a little concerned with how these issues are often covered. What I mean is that these "revolutionaries" are dismissed out of hand as engaging in behavior that is categorically unacceptable. But that line of reasoning - that violence in defense (even mistakenly) of freedom is unacceptable - is difficult to reconcile with the first sentence of this post, isn't it?

I mean, wouldn't we all agree that frequently, recently, and even currently, our government does things that are unlawful or unconstitutional, and people have a right to physically resist complying with such actions? Or even that, at some point, our very own government could, theoretically, become so oppressive and unjust that it would be justified for citizens to resort to violence in response? The answers to these questions have to be "yes" don't they?

Think about it, as Americans, we are awfully proud of our history, highlighted by an armed rebellion against an oppressive and unjust government. But let's not forget that the men who lead this rebellion had land, and influence and relatively nice lives; they were not rebelling because they were enslaved in prison camps. But has any American person ever - ever - raised a doubt as to whether the American Revolution was "too extreme," or that complaints about high taxes, unequal or non-existent representation, and a 2-tiered system of justice should have just been met with a letter-writing campaign?

Now let me again be clear that I am not defending or endorsing violence. I am actually of the view that violence is completely unjustified in just about every conceivable circumstance and that initiating violence in any circumstance is per se immoral, even when done in defense of freedom.

Which actually brings me to another sad point about media coverage of these violent "revolutionaries": it would be one thing if this coverage was part of an over-arching philosophy that consistently rejected violence in all forms, but considering how our media, and our national discourse, cheerleads us to war, then accepts it as standard and routine, or defends and excuses torture, or openly debates whether we should strike first against countries like Iran, it seems a little strange for them to dismiss as absurd the notion of people fighting for what they (erroneously) believe to be the very existence of their basic freedoms.

In other words, the reasons why we are occupying foreign countries at the cost of heavy bloodshed are open for political debate, and can be justified with revolving excuses from "spreading democracy" to fighting terrorism, but fighting an oppressive domestic government is nothing but a punchline? Any criticism of these "Patriot" groups needs to start with pointing out that our government, despite being corrupt, ineffective, opaque, unresponsive and criminal is still miles away from the point where an armed revolution is justified.