In 2003, Linkin Park knew they had to live up to their previous releases that dominated the charts. Fan were anxiously awaiting the nu metal band’s new music. Would it live up to “Hybrid Theory,” their iconic debut? They had to wait and listen for when the album would be released on March 25, 2003.
It is safe to say that “Meteora” did not disappoint. From start to finish, the album has absolutely no skippable songs. “Breaking the Habit” and “Numb” are the biggest songs to chart, with “Numb” getting a remix featuring Jay-Z. “Somewhere I Belong,” “Easier to Run” and “From the Inside” are also worth listening to as the combination of Chester Bennington and Mike Shinoda’s vocals are phenomenal.
In 2023, the band announced that they would be releasing a compilation of albums and unreleased music in a box set of 89 songs called “Meteora 20” to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of “Meteora.” A release with that many songs is huge news from the band, as they have not released much music since lead singer Bennington’s death in 2017. To say fans were excited is an understatement.
“Meteora 20” made its way to fans’ ears on Friday, April 7. It cannot be listened to in one sitting, but it is worth your time. The songs that resonate the most are the unreleased songs and demos because they bring out a side of the band fans have never really had the chance to experience. The live songs transport listeners as if they were actually there at the concert, something that can be hard for live albums to achieve.
“Lost” was released as this edition’s first single and is one of the best songs the band has created. It was a previously unreleased song and it features Bennington’s vocals, something fans have missed. The lyrics are just as relevant today because the song is about feeling lost.
It is truly amazing that a band that was thought to only have a few hit songs would still be culturally relevant 23 years since their debut album was released.
Linkin Park still has original fans who were old enough to remember when the band was just getting started, along with a whole new generation of fans, thanks to their older fanbase exposing younger people to this amazing band.
The early 2000s would not be the same if there was no Linkin Park. The world would be a boring place if you could not scream the lyrics of “Numb” at the top of your lungs while in the car. Linkin Park defined a whole generation, and they will continue to impact newer generations as the years progress.
“Meteora 20” can be streamed digitally on music platforms or purchased physically as a boxset. You do not want to miss out on listening to this album as it is some of the band’s best work. Here’s to hoping they release more anniversary editions of their other albums.
Eric Says • Apr 16, 2021 at 2:51 am
Benjamin Morawek • Apr 24, 2021 at 9:26 am
Hi Eric,
I believe you wrote this in response to Mike but I have a few thoughts on it myself.
I think we agree that a citizens right to representation shouldnt depend on where they reside. Some of my fellow conservatives reject this, saying that D.C. citizens should move if they want to fully access their rights as citizens. I disagree with them but I dont think their point is as weak as it may appear at first glance. There are certain places where it seems appropriate to limit the exercise of rights. On a military base, for example, ones rights to free expression and self-government are necessarily limited for the sake of efficiency and security. A similar case might be made for the capitalin fact, the very same clause in which the Constitution grants federal authority over D.C. is also the one that grants like Authority over all military facilities.¹ Maintaining the security and efficient operation of government may require anyone who chooses to enter/stay in the capital area to give up some of their rights. So long as they are not prevented from leaving the area to access their full array of rights, not much harm is done.
I already explained how to grant Maryland citizenship to D.C. residents without Marylands consent in my response to your other comment so Ill turn now to your last point.
I agree that depriving Missourians of their rights to property and representation is a bad ideanot to mention the fact that this proposal is indefensible simply on considering the sheer cost of moving the federal capital. As for Puerto Rican statehood, it truly is, as you put it, a bit debatable. I go through some of the complications in my response to Mike if you want to read about it. Personally, I think the future of Puerto Ricowhether for statehood, sovereignty, or some other statusshould be decided by the Puerto Rican people themselves (although Congress should review all requests for statehood). The issue of citizenship for American Samoans was something I didnt know about until now, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I could not find any Supreme Court case that declared them an uncivilized race; however, I did find a source that claims the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Navy refused to recognize American Samoans as citizens . . . in large part due to racial stereotypes.² That being said, the matter of changing this status is also a bit debatable: Line-Noue Memea Kruse, author of The Pacific Insular Case of American Samoa, said ending American Samoans distinct status as noncitizen U.S. nationals may eventually lead federal judges to rule that their customary political system and land rights are unconstitutional, comparing it to what has happened to Native Hawaiians in Hawaii.³
I hope this provides some food for thought. Thanks for the comments!
Benjamin Morawek
Notes
¹ U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-8-:~:text=and%20to%20exercise%20like%20Authority%20over,Arsenals%2C%20dock%2DYards%2C%20and%20other%20needful%20Buildings
² Equally American (n.d.). Why are people born in American Samoa not recognized as U.S. citizens? Retrieved from https://www.equalrightsnow.org/why_people_born_in_american_samoa_not_recognized_as_u_s_citizens
³ Van Dyke, M. B. (2019, December 17). Why some American Samoans dont want U.S. citizenship. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/why-some-american-samoans-don-t-want-u-s-citizenship-n1103256
Eric Says • Apr 16, 2021 at 2:39 am
DC cannot send in defenses without a federal request as could Virginia and Maryland. The fault was federal, not a failure by DC.
The Virginia portion of DC was returned to Virginia with the agreement of Virginia, Congress and DC in order to facilitate the slave trade.
The framers never intended to create a place with taxation and no representation. That happened later as freed enslaved peoples began living in DC.
DC cannot become a part of Maryland with the concent of Maryland, Congress and DC. Both DC and Maryland have not agreed to reunite and Maryland polls don’t support reuniting. The best way to give DC proper representation is through a constitutional amendment. But that has less support so statehood is the simplest option.
DC has a greater land mass and population than several independent nations. Any argument against statehood is a move against equal representation. If DC were a white republican city it would have had equal representation years ago. In fact, DC is required to elect two non-majority city council members (read non democratic) and if Congress doesn’t like the laws passed they can prevent.them.from becoming law or they can even prevent.the votes from being counted. Wow, just think about that and wonder how it could happen…
Benjamin Morawek • Apr 24, 2021 at 8:01 am
Eric,
Thank you for your comment. Regarding the authority to send/request law enforcement support, the timeline surrounding the Jan. 6 attack released by the Dept. of Defense¹ reveals that the D.C. local government is (1) responsible for enforcing the law within the District and (2) able to request additional support from the D.C. National Guard and the U.S. Armyof course, these requests are subject to the approval of the federal government but that wasnt an issue leading up to the Jan. 6 attack. On the contrary, President Trump approved the activation of the National Guard on Jan. 3, and on the following day, the Acting Sec. of Defense approve[d] the activation of 340 members of the [National Guard] . . . [and] a Quick Reaction Force (40 personnel staged at Joint Base Andrews) if additional support [was] requested.² But then, on Jan. 5, D.C. Mayor Bowser sent the letter I mentioned in the article wherein she asserted that The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies. . . . [D.C. police are] well trained and prepared to lead the law enforcement, coordination and response to allow for the peaceful demonstration of First Amendment rights.³ The fault was not federal, they offered more support; it was a failure by D.C.
Your next point led me to research an interesting proposal that I hadnt considered before. Youre correct that DC cannot become a part of Maryland with[out] the con[s]ent of Maryland but it appears that Congress can grant Maryland citizenship to D.C. residents without Marylands consent. I know that sounds a little confusing but its true and it comes from the fact that, as you mentioned, The framers never intended to create a place with taxation and no representation. When the District was originally formed, the people living in it did not lose their Virginia or Maryland citizenshipthey continued to vote for presidents and members of Congress as Virginians or Marylanders. Congress stripped D.C. residents of their state citizenship and voting rights with the Organic Act of 1801 and it stands to reason that Congress can restore rights by statute that it took away by statute. Because the Constitution gives the federal government the exclusive authority to administer D.C., Congress needs neither Marylands nor D.C.s consent to restore Maryland citizenship while retaining jurisdictional supremacy over the District. I think this solution is both the simplest and more likely to find greater bipartisan support than the current proposal for statehood.
You point out that DC has a greater land mass and population than several independent nations. While this is true, it justifies neither statehood nor independent sovereignty. James Madisons great insight was that In a free government the security for civil rights . . . consists . . . in the multiplicity of interests. . . . The degree of security . . . will depend on the number of interests . . . and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. As R. Hewitt Pate explains, Unlike other states, the District does not possess the multiplicity of interests Madison described in Federalist No. 51 as the essence of civil government. There is no rural or agricultural area. There is no manufacturing. As several commentators have put it, the District is a company town, and that company is the federal government.
You claim that If DC were a white republican city it would have had equal representation years ago. While that may or may not be true, it would not justify D.C. statehood because, whether its a red state or a blue state, the federal governments outsized dependence on it would provide that state an outsized influence on the federal government and that is both dangerous and unfair to the other states.
You say that if Congress doesnt like the laws passed [by D.C.,] they can prevent them from becoming law or they can even prevent the votes from being counted. Wow, just think about that and wonder how it could happen. I have thought about it and the explanation makes a lot of sense: It is inherently problematic to make the security of the supreme government dependent on an entity other than itself; therefore, the supreme government must have the exclusive authority to administer the area around which it conducts its business. I favor granting congressional representation and broad self-governing autonomy to D.C. residents; however, I recognize that the wellbeing of the nation depends on maintaining an arrangement that provides the United States with ultimate authority over its own capital.
I hope these thoughts intrigued you. The criticisms you made were insightful and pushed me to think in new ways, thank you for that. I would very much like to know what you think of my response.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Morawek
Notes
¹ U.S. Dept. of Defense (2021, January 11). Planning and Execution Timeline for the National Guards Involvement in the January 6, 2021, Violent Attack at the U.S. Capitol. Retreived from https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/2002563151/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF
² Ibid., p. 1.
³ Bowser, M. (2021, January 5). To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel. Twitter, https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?s=20
Rohrabacher, D. (2004, June 23). Common-Sense Justice for the Nations Capital: An Examination of Proposals to Give D.C. Residents Direct Representation. Retrieved from http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081129034542/https%3A//www.dcvote.org/pdfs/drohrabacher062304.pdf
Ibid., p. 5.
Madison, J. (1788, February 8). The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments. New York Packet. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-51-60#s-lg-content-48956953:~:text=In%20a%20free%20government%20the%20security,people%20comprehended%20under%20the%20same%20government
Pate, R. W. (1993, January 28). D.C. Statehood: Not Without a Constitutional Amendment. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/dc-statehood-not-without-constitutional-amendment/#block-mainpagecontent:~:text=Unlike%20other%20states%2C%20the%20District%20does,that%20company%20is%20the%20federal%20government
Mike • Apr 15, 2021 at 3:30 am
The constitution also doesn’t allow for the federal authority to take property from one state to form another without their consent. If representation of the district is truly an issue, then there are a few options. 1. People should move out of the district. What better way to have representation, than to belong to one of the states that make up the "United States". 2. Cede some of DC back to Maryland and forbit occupation of the federal district that is leftover. Turn those properties into Bed & Breakfasts. 3. Relocate the seat of the federal government to a more central location in the United States, and disallow permanent residency and land ownership there. If representation were truly the goal, then why is Puerto Rico, more qualified, and deserving of statehood, still unable to become a state?