There are obvious contrasting views between the two article written by John Updike and Susan Sontag. Updike presented a first-person recollection of seeing the towers fall from his relative's apartment whereas Sontag critiqued how America handled the situation afterward.
Updike's article raised the question of limiting our freedoms--more specifically, freedom of motion. Should we cut back on some of those freedoms to better protect ourselves from future threats? An example Updike included: should we limit the people joining flight school in case someone decides to kamikaze attack the United States? I feel that limiting our freedoms won't solve anything. If a terrorist organization truly wanted to attack us again, they would think ahead and send the martyr to a pilot school in the UK instead, where they'd be more likely to pass the screening.
Sontag main point revolved with how we blindly followed what the government and media reported. She noted how people (who opposed the president) now supported Bush and his policies. I believe there's reason to that phenomenon. A single leader can better control a group or country of people faster than one whose subjected to multiple views and counter-views. If the most or all of congress follow the president's views completely, things move rapidly through the system and can quickly act upon the threat. However, in haste, things can be overlooked. I agree with Sontag that we needed to spend more time discussing the new policies and considering different ideas to prevent a mess in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment