I remember the morning, it was different from most even before we heard of the attack. As a rule the TV would have been broadcasting the morning news (For my Wife) and the short wave would have been turned on so I could hear it while reading news articles on the computer. That morning the TV and radio were both turned off. I was reading what I thought was a great piece of fiction at the London Telegraph on-line site. It seemed like a new version of War Of The Worlds. It told about an air plane hitting one of the WTC towers. My Wife handed me the phone and told me it was my Step-Daughter. The first thing I heard was, "Are you watching this (self-censored) someone just crashed a jet-liner into the World Trade Center. OH my God! They just hit the other tower." First I was numb then angry. Later I was outraged by the number of people that would willingly give up their freedom/liberties for a little security.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

i wore a black armband for a full year after the attack. i wear black each year, now. our son was scheduled to visit colleges in new york in late october, 2001. i recall visiting the site, and becoming so overwhelmed by the magnitude of the event, the unbelief, the stench that i was physically ill. i saw people of every nationality, every walk of life, on their knees sobbing. everyone i spoke with was resolved in one thing..... to live better lives, to be better people. i hope that every single american , every single joetowner will fly their stars and stripes tomorrow.

i guess i've been called out

david, i hear you loud and clear on the surrender of our freedoms in the rampant legislation passed after that awful day. we ARE losing our civil rights, which was exactly the goal on that day.

I remember that day. I was at work and we usually had the radio on but didn't that morning. Then a co-worker's husband called and told us that a plane hit the WTC. We turned on the radio, then went into our boss's office and turned on his TV and sat watching it. It was so sickening and surreal. My parents were living in North Carolina at the time and I couldn't get ahold of them. I was finally able to get ahold of my mom and she told me that my dad, who was in the Army, had been previously scheduled to fly a mission that morning and he was in the air somewhere and she couldn't get ahold of him or even find out where he was. That was so scary. The whole day was so heartbreaking and it still drains my soul when I think about it.

I wonder how I am going to explain to my 4 year old son when he is older about how horrible that day was. How will I be able to explain the terror and how much that day changed our world? I hate that I will have to do that but I want him to understand.

Much like the Oklahoma City bombing, it is something that sticks with you forever, that you never forget.

overreact much fellas? How has anyone's life really changed after 9/11? Maybe it takes a little while longer to get on a plane now? So what, leave a half hour earlier. Afraid someone is tapping into your private phone conversations? Are you conversating with recognized terrorists in a foreign nation?

Give me a break. Nothing in the Patriot Act has really put a hindrance on our daily activities.

that is absolutely not what I'm saying. I just think your conspiracy theories are a bit over the top.

it's sad that it takes a disaster like that to bring our country together.

some of that stuff still doesnt really bother me. I'm sure the local PD doesn't give much of a rat's ass about what porn sites I visit. Or my conversations with my grand-ma-ma probably aren't going to keep CIA operatives interested too long. Maybe I'm wrong on this, I just don't see how most of this is such a big deal. I'd rather our enforcement agencies try and moniter the individuals they believe to be a threat to our nation to try and keep my family and I safe then to simply ignore what they potentially could be doing to deter terrorism. Maybe that's just me.

Our rights won't be taken all at once, we'd never allow that. They will be taken by piece meal. First we lose the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments and people say well that doesn't effect me. Then they take the Third, Sixth and Tenth and folks say it is to protect us from terrorists. When do we say no? When the Second Amendment is gone? By then it will be to late.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

it's all about the white man trying to hold you down!

GOD SPEED!

whhhoooossssshhhhh

you guys know what that is?

It's the black helicopters hovering overhead

AAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!@!#!#@!#@!#@!#!

Sitting in Boulder, Colorado at a breakfast buffet in a nice Hotel, I notice the smoke coming from a building.

I ask the person sitting in the chair next to the TV was was going on, she said she thought it was a building in downtown Denver.

Several people were watching with me as we saw, live, the second plane come into site and crash into the building -

Chills, I still get chills thinking about it, how surreal it was.

We were going to look at a software package for the company i'd been with for nearly 2 decades. One company had presented and failed several times, this was a new one -

Instead, we had a TV brought up and we watched the day unfold, live, in front of us.

And what I remember seeing, watching, living is different than the stories some people try and put out there, whatever, I know what I lived.

No flights, luckily I had rented an extra vehicle and that paid off - we had people in from all over the country, and they all wanted to get home.

We cruised home at speeds of 85-90MPH and highway patrolman waved us on, there was no speed limits that day.

And we were being passed, and you know, there was not a lot of accidents because of it -

9.11 - I could go on and on but I'm not -

May those killed in the attacks and afterwards rest in peace, my thoughts and prayers go to them and their families.

And God please bless the hero's of then and now, those who fight for our freedom to remain intact.

grimjack:

Where did your cut & paste come from?

You do realize that the ACLU is one of the most liberal organizations in existence don’t you?

I remember when I was a kid hearing my parents talk about where they were when President Kennedy was shot. Now our children will be hearing us talk about where we were on that horrific day in 2001 when the world stood still.
I was home with my four month old son who was suffering from RSV. I sat and rocked him as the shock set in and the tears flowed, and thought "What kind of world is he going to grow up in"??? Remember for the weeks that followed how we all came together and how kind we all were to each other? Too bad that did not last. The people who lost their lives on that terrible day deserve at least that much as a legacy!

I remember I was at work and we heard it on the radio. We turned off the X-Box and onto the news and watched the day unfold. People that came into our office didn't really have much to say. I also remember how quiet it was outside. It was like almost everything came to a standstill for a little while.

dalearch-- Check out Bob Barr's website, and his public statements about the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance program, and others. Barr is a longtime conservative Republican, now running for President as a libertarian. Look at what Bruce Fein, former Deputy Attorney General under Reagan, has been saying. "It's just the liberals" doesn't fly on this issue.

Regarding the general theme, I knew 1/2 dozen people who died in NY that day; and my stepdad lost several colleagues in the Pentagon. I hope we always remember what happened and-- regardless of what we may think of our government-- how it brought out the best in Americans.

dsbsh:

Naturally there are going to be people from both sides agreeing on any particular topic, but I’m sure you’ll find that the lion’s share of people saying that their rights have been taken away from them are liberals.

Once again, I have yet to have a liberal (or anyone) give me a specific right that they have lost.

dalearch-- You're merely stating a truism, and an exaggerated one at that. One of the core differences between liberals and conservatives is their views on individual freedom versus government power. Conservatives are far more willing to give up individual rights in the name of order-- not merely for security but also and preservation of majority values. On the other hand, conservatives are less willing to give up their individual rights in the name of equality-- which explains the opposition to social insurance programs and regulation of the economy. Both ideologies like big government, just for different purposes. In addition, very few people in this country (it's less than 25%) actually think in ideological terms, and most who use the terms barely know what they mean. Most people who oppose curbs on rights simply don't like curbs on rights. Labeling people who oppose increased surveillance programs, "enhanced interrogation," or other criticized programs, as "liberals," is no better than labeling those who opposes higher taxes as "conservative;" it's simplistic and wrong.

In any event, the point is that in this case the loss of rights is so dramatic that many respected conservatives are crying foul too.

As for "specific rights they have lost," that's not the way rights get reduced by government. The 4th Amendment doesn't get repealed; exceptions get created, programs are implemented without scrutiny and/or are sold to a public afraid of the bad guys. We have all lost some of our 4th Amendment protection, even if it has not directly harmed any of us. Under the Patriot Act and, more important, Justice Department and NSA administrative programs, surveillance can be conducted on Americans placing calls or sending e-mails overseas without a warrant, without the need to document the basis for the surveillance, and without meaningful judicial oversight before or after the fact. Under the most recent legislation, the FISA Court merely gets to review the program periodically, but not to review the individual cases.

I could make a similar cases for the right against self-incrimination, the right to an attorney, and a few others. Degradation of these rights is a loss for all of us. That doesn't mean some of it isn't necessary. But unsupervised executive power, which we've had for several years now, is not a good thing.

dsbsh:

Horsehockey. You really have a warped sense of reality.

Conservatives are no more willing to give up rights than anyone else – even to preserve “majority values”. What conservatives object strenuously to is activist judges imposing their “minority values” on the majority.

Conservative’s “opposition to social insurance programs and regulation of the economy” stem from the fact that they don’t work. I’ve been in hospitals in countries that have socialized medicine. It doesn’t even compare with ours. I’ve visited and or worked in Communist countries, and lived and worked in Socialist countries. I can tell you first hand that neither of these can hold a candle to capitalism and a free market.
As far as other social programs, conservatives have no problem helping those who help themselves. What we object to are the low-life’s that milk the system so they don’t have to work.

As far as “surveillance can be conducted on Americans placing calls or sending e-mails overseas without a warrant”, do you really think you or I are important enough that the government is going to spy on us? I frequently call my friends in other countries. I couldn’t care less if someone is listening in. If you’re not a terrorist or associating with terrorists you don’t have anything to worry about.

As far as opposition to “enhanced interrogation”: if we know that someone has information that could save even one American life, I say “enhance their interrogation” until they give up the info.

Ah... the "activist judges" whine. We've had an overwhelmingly conservative federal judiciary for years now, yet still the whining goes on. GOP appointees make up over 70% of the federal bench and 7 of the 9 S.Ct. justices; every justice since 1971, except one, has been more conservative than his/her predecessor. I could go on, but it's not worth the effort. "Activist judges" is code for "I don't like the decision;" it's bogus whether used by liberals or conservatives.

You persist in trying to present issues as either/or, black/white, but that's not how a rational world works. Our system is predominantly capitalist. And I agree it's better than socialism. But pure capitalism, with no safety net and no regulation of abuses, is also dreadful. As for "they don't work" and "low-lifes that milk the system," do you want to eliminate any program that someone abuses? Of course there are abuses, and they should be stopeed, but the oft-repeated claim of millions of people using welfare to avoid working is bogus. The facts show otherwise; most welfare recipients are short-term, and many of the programs you generically call failures have done quite well in this country. Sure they're expensive, but that means reform them, not eliminate all of them and screw anyone who needs help.

Of course conservatives "are no more willing to give up rights than anyone else." That's what I wrote. They're just willing to give them up for very different reasons than are liberals. What I wrote is basic American Government 101, which everyone is supposed to learn in high school. Conservative ideology supports laws regulating personal lifestyle choices-- criminalizing homosexual behavior, compelling medical treatment over the objection of the terminally ill, mandating teacher-led (not just voluntary) prayer in public schools-- to promote majority values. Of course not all conservatives support all of these; most people aren't driven by ideology but by specific issues. But the fact is, if you support harsher penalties for drug users, want abortion criminalized, and want to grow the military (which right now is quite necessary), you are for big government.

On the issue of surveillance, we have a Constitution, which is designed to give the government the power it needs, but also to guard against abuse of that power. If having "nothing to hide" is good enough for you, then you really don't need a Constitution or any limits on government, do you? History shows not only that government will abuse its power (Presidents from Lincoln to Bush have done so), but that many of those abuses are totally unnecessary. As for enhanced interrogation, one thing that almost all experts agree upon (you might do some reading on this issue) is that torture doesn't work; the person being interrogated will say anything to stop the torture, and the information is rarely helpful-- so I'm not sure what your point is.

dsbsh:

You should reread your post. You accuse me of either/or, black/white?

We could bat this back and forth forever and never agree, so I’ll make a few points and then I’m done. It’s not just “"activist judges" whine”. A perfect example was in the news just this morning. The townspeople of Rivera Beach, FL got a petition together with 5000 signatures to have a measure added to the ballot to ban the wearing of baggy pants that shows the person’s underwear. The measure was voted on and passed. A judge decided it was unconstitutional and overturned it. With the stroke of a pen, one person decided what was best for these people.
It doesn’t matter which side of this issue you agree with – it’s not right for a judge to be able to override the wishes of literally thousands of people.

Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – AKA: 9th Circus Court of Appeasers – which has been overturned in over 85% of their decisions. This is more than just one person, but they are liberal activists.

As far as “do you want to eliminate any program that someone abuses?” – no, I don’t. Read my sentence again. I said “As far as other social programs, conservatives have no problem helping those who help themselves. What we object to are the low-life’s that milk the system so they don’t have to work.” Specifically the “conservatives have no problem helping those who help themselves” part should clue you in that I’m not saying we should eliminate all programs. I do think we should stop allowing those that abuse the system to do so. This was another decision by the 9th Circus Court of Appeasers that was overturned. Tenants that were using their taxpayer paid apartments to sell drugs were evicted. When they sued, the court upheld their eviction. They appealed to the 9th Circus Court of Appeasers, and it was overturned. Thankfully this was one of the decisions the Supreme Court reversed.

You say “one thing that almost all experts agree upon (you might do some reading on this issue) is that torture doesn't work”. I have done a lot of reading on this. I have no doubt that “almost all experts” that you listen to say this. I can show you just as many that say just the opposite.

dsbsh--I agree that in most cases when someone complains about "activist judges" it is because they don't like the decision. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.

Dalearch makes the case when he cites the decision regarding baggy pants. He apparently feels that because a majority of people agree that baggy pants are "bad", that should override the rights of the minority. Because he doesn't like the decision, he says this is an example of an "activist judge". In fact, the judge did not "decide what was best for these people". He correctly carried out his obligation to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional. He correctly ruled that a person's attire is a form of speech that is protected by the First Amendment. This kind of decision is precisely the kind of thing the Constitution was designed to prevent--the majority imposing its view on the minority.

Unfortunately, he also oversimplifies the facts of the Housing Authority case. The parties challenging the law were not "selling drugs" out of their "taxpayer paid apartments".

Rather, the plaintiffs were several elderly tenants whose grandchildren were arrested for smoking marijuana in the parking lot of the public housing project. A 1991 amendment to HUD regulations allows eviction of a tenant if a family member who lived in their unit, or a guest, was arrested on drug charges. The plaintiffs argued that they were being evicted/punished for the acts of a third-party. Far from being the decision of a group of wild-eyed liberals, the Ninth Circuit's decision was based on personal responsibility. They held that an innocent person should not be punished for the actions of a third-party outside the leased property. Personal responsibility--that sounds like what most of the conservatives on this board are always talking about. (Frankly, given the language of the regulation, I think the Supreme Court made the correct decision, but it was far from a repudiation of an overly-liberal decision).

I notice that he did not cite the recent Heller decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the DC ban on handguns as a case in which "activist judges" overturned a duly enacted law. (In my opinion, this was a correct interpretation of the Second Amendment).

Just goes to show "activist" is in the eye of the beholder.

Rockchalk-- Thanks for saying it so well. (I teach this stuff for a living, and I make my students read the actual cases; if they rely on news stories that dumb down the facts, they're rarely happy with their grades.)

dalearch-- You didn't agree with yourself in that prior comment. I read your sentence, but you also stated earlier in that paragraph: "Conservative’s “opposition to social insurance programs and regulation of the economy” stem from the fact that they don’t work." At least we agree about those who abuse them.

Sure the 9th Circuit is liberal; it's the most liberal circuit in the country. I certainly don't agree with many of its decisions. But rather than dismissing its judges as liberal activists, you might consider that that the reversal rate is also due to having the most conservative Supreme Court in generations.

One last thing and I'm finished as well :) You wrote: "It doesn’t matter which side of this issue you agree with – it’s not right for a judge to be able to override the wishes of literally thousands of people." Let's see... thousands of people in a town pass a law banning the religious practices of a local church they don't like, or make criticizing the mayor a crime, or deny the right to vote to African Americans. And your problem is the judge who says "no, not under our Constitution?" I actually don't believe you think that way; I think you read a blurb about that Florida case and decided you didn't like the result.

I lied. I can’t let these comments go unanswered.

Before I can comment any further on the Housing Authority case I’ll have to do more research.

You missed the key point of the “baggy pants” issue. I don’t care if people wear baggy pants & I’m sure the people of Rivera Beach don’t either. It’s the pants hanging down and exposing yourself that is the problem. I don’t even mind the underwear showing. It’s the ones that have their butt crack sticking out or their pubes showing in front that bothers me. Does this happen with other people…yes…but not purposely.

I agree that how someone dresses is a form of speech, but their right to this ends when they infringe upon the rights of thousands of people who don’t want it and/or are offended by it.

You wrote “I notice that he did not cite the recent Heller decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the DC ban on handguns as a case in which "activist judges" overturned a duly enacted law.”
It’s my understanding that this law was not “duly enacted” by the vote of the people – it was imposed upon them.

When I said that social insurance programs don’t work I was referring to National healthcare. We need programs such as welfare, but they need to be monitored much closer.