Very often, patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Samuel Johnson said. But sometimes it's genuine -- and sometimes these genuine patriots really do know what their country needs and how they can help.
Via Hullabaloo:
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Rick Perry's ignorance about the meaning of patriotism
Andrew Sullivan cited a comment from Rick Perry recently that hit on one of the things I dislike most about this current crop of conservatives. It's the notion that to disagree with them politically means that one is unpatriotic, really not fit to be an American.
Here's what Perry had to say:
One of the reasons that I'm running for president is that I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on a uniform of the United States respects the president of the United States.
I don't think we need to doubt that Perry is saying that the man who currently holds the office doesn't deserve the respect of the men and women in uniform.
This really is unbelievable.
As Sullivan writes:
Putting the respect of troops for the commander-in-chief in question is yet another radical assault on existing traditions and institutions. There is nothing these people won't destroy for power.
No, there is nothing these people won't destroy to defend their ignorant view of the world.
There seems to be no end to the claim that we have to agree with every crackpot radical right-wing extremist about what it means to be an American or we are not, by their judgement, worthy to serve.
Speaking in Iowa on Sunday, Perry added this gem:
I think you want a president who is passionate about America - that's in love with America.
As Steve Benen commented, "Perry didn't explicitly say that the president doesn't love America, but the implication wasn't exactly subtle."
Sometimes they leave me speechless. Do they have any idea how much hatred is involved in their grand pronouncements about love of country?
Will they ever understand that wanting to make America a better place to live for everyone is the surest indication of patriotism?
Not likely on either count.
(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Photo of the Day: Memorial Day 2011 - Stony Point, New York
This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday. It's a fairly ordinary shot depicting an older veteran and a young boy at a Memorial Day celebration. It could be anywhere, but it happens to be in my home town of Stony Point, New York. I grew up in the area. I still have family there, though I have lived mostly in other places for the past 30 years.
According to the Times caption, the older gentleman is Arnold Rist, who is 86 years old. The youngster is Thomas Cahill, age 3. On Monday, Mr Rist played taps, as, the caption states, he has done hundreds of times at military funerals. In April 1945, it says that he was among the soldiers who liberated the inmates of Dachau concentration camp.
My sister sent the picture and she and I were trying to figure out where it was taken. We are pretty sure it's at the Stony Point Town Hall because that's where the local parades ended when she and I marched in them as part of our high school band when we took part in the annual celebrations many, many years ago.
My sister sent the picture and she and I were trying to figure out where it was taken. We are pretty sure it's at the Stony Point Town Hall because that's where the local parades ended when she and I marched in them as part of our high school band when we took part in the annual celebrations many, many years ago.
I mention all of this, in part, because I marvel at how the political right so aggressively claims patriotism for themselves as if those of us on the left couldn't possibly understand what pride in community and the sacrifice of others means. They like to paint all of their political opponents as radically different and therefore wrong about everything.
I do hate to disappoint people like that, but I grew up in a small town. I've worked hard to understand the history, culture, and politics of my country. I take pride in what is good and criticize passionately what needs work, which is not a bad definition of patriotism from my point of view.
If you want to disagree with me, do it on the facts and not on some bogus claim that you are more American than I am simply because you think you are, as you wrap yourself in the flag and refuse to listen to any other voice but your own.
I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day and remembered to remember the sacrifices made by people like Mr. Rist and so many others.
(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Glorious Fourth
By Mustang Bobby.
When I was a kid I was very outgoing in putting up displays for the holidays -- Memorial Day, Christmas, the Fourth of July -- I liked the flags, the lights, the stuff. It was cool to make a big splash. But as I grew up I grew out of it, and today I don't go much for things like that. I don't have a flag to fly on national holidays, and the most I'll do for Christmas is a wreath on the door because it has good memories and the scent of pine is rare in subtropical Florida.
I suppose it has something to do with my Quaker notions of shunning iconography -- outward symbols can't show how you truly feel about something on the inside, and more often than not they are used to make up for the lack of a true belief. This is also true of patriotism: waving the flag -- or wrapping yourself in it -- is a poor and false measure of how you truly feel about your country.
There's an old saying that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. As Benjamin Franklin noted, no country had ever been formed because of an idea. But when the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1776 and passed the resolution embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that was what was being done. To create a nation not based on geographical boundaries, property, tribalism, or religion, but on the idea of forming a new government to replace the present form because the rulers were incompetent, uncaring, and cruel. The American Revolution wasn't so much a rebellion as it was a cry for attention. Most of the Declaration is a punch-list, if you will, of grievances both petty and grand against the Crown, and once the revolution was over and the new government was formed, the Constitution contained many remedies to prevent the slights and injuries inflicted under colonialism: the Bill of Rights is a direct response to many of the complaints listed in the Declaration.
But the Declaration of Independence goes beyond complaints. Its preamble is a mission statement. It proclaims our goals and what we hope to achieve. No nation had ever done that before, and to this day we are still struggling to achieve life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness goes on with no sign of let-up.
That is the true glory of America. Not that we complain -- and we do -- but that we work to fix those complaints. To put them right. To make things better than they were. To give hope to people who feel that they have no voice, and to assure that regardless of who they are, where they come from, what they look like, who they love, or what they believe, there will be room for them to grow, do, and become whatever it is that they have the capacity to be. It's a simple idea, but the simplest ideas often have the most powerful impact.
This nation has achieved many great things. We've inspired other nations and drawn millions to our shores not to just escape their own country but to participate in what we're doing. And we've made mistakes. We've blundered and fumbled and bullied and injured. We've treated some of our own citizens with contempt, and shown the same kind of disregard for the rights of others that we enumerated in our own Declaration of Independence. We have been guilty of arrogance and hypocrisy. But these are all human traits, and we are, after all, human. The goal of government is to rise above humanity, and the goal of humanity is to strive for perfection. So if we stumble on the road to that goal, it is only because we are moving forward.
I love this country not for what it is but for what it could be. In my own way I show my patriotism not by waving a flag from my front porch but by working to make things work in our system and by adding to the discussion that will bring forth ideas to improve our lives and call into question the ideas of others. It is all a part of what makes the simple idea of life, liberty, and that elusive happiness so compelling and so inspiring, and what makes me very proud to be a part of this grand experiment.
Go forth!
(Originally posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof on July 4, 2005.)
When I was a kid I was very outgoing in putting up displays for the holidays -- Memorial Day, Christmas, the Fourth of July -- I liked the flags, the lights, the stuff. It was cool to make a big splash. But as I grew up I grew out of it, and today I don't go much for things like that. I don't have a flag to fly on national holidays, and the most I'll do for Christmas is a wreath on the door because it has good memories and the scent of pine is rare in subtropical Florida.
I suppose it has something to do with my Quaker notions of shunning iconography -- outward symbols can't show how you truly feel about something on the inside, and more often than not they are used to make up for the lack of a true belief. This is also true of patriotism: waving the flag -- or wrapping yourself in it -- is a poor and false measure of how you truly feel about your country.
There's an old saying that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. As Benjamin Franklin noted, no country had ever been formed because of an idea. But when the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1776 and passed the resolution embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that was what was being done. To create a nation not based on geographical boundaries, property, tribalism, or religion, but on the idea of forming a new government to replace the present form because the rulers were incompetent, uncaring, and cruel. The American Revolution wasn't so much a rebellion as it was a cry for attention. Most of the Declaration is a punch-list, if you will, of grievances both petty and grand against the Crown, and once the revolution was over and the new government was formed, the Constitution contained many remedies to prevent the slights and injuries inflicted under colonialism: the Bill of Rights is a direct response to many of the complaints listed in the Declaration.
But the Declaration of Independence goes beyond complaints. Its preamble is a mission statement. It proclaims our goals and what we hope to achieve. No nation had ever done that before, and to this day we are still struggling to achieve life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness goes on with no sign of let-up.
That is the true glory of America. Not that we complain -- and we do -- but that we work to fix those complaints. To put them right. To make things better than they were. To give hope to people who feel that they have no voice, and to assure that regardless of who they are, where they come from, what they look like, who they love, or what they believe, there will be room for them to grow, do, and become whatever it is that they have the capacity to be. It's a simple idea, but the simplest ideas often have the most powerful impact.
This nation has achieved many great things. We've inspired other nations and drawn millions to our shores not to just escape their own country but to participate in what we're doing. And we've made mistakes. We've blundered and fumbled and bullied and injured. We've treated some of our own citizens with contempt, and shown the same kind of disregard for the rights of others that we enumerated in our own Declaration of Independence. We have been guilty of arrogance and hypocrisy. But these are all human traits, and we are, after all, human. The goal of government is to rise above humanity, and the goal of humanity is to strive for perfection. So if we stumble on the road to that goal, it is only because we are moving forward.
I love this country not for what it is but for what it could be. In my own way I show my patriotism not by waving a flag from my front porch but by working to make things work in our system and by adding to the discussion that will bring forth ideas to improve our lives and call into question the ideas of others. It is all a part of what makes the simple idea of life, liberty, and that elusive happiness so compelling and so inspiring, and what makes me very proud to be a part of this grand experiment.
Go forth!
(Originally posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof on July 4, 2005.)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Taxes and patriotism
By Michael J.W. Stickings
On ABC's Good Morning America today, Joe Biden said this: "It's time to be patriotic... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." What he was referring to was taxes. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." In other words, wealthier people should pay more than they do now, particularly after Bush's plutocratic tax cuts.
In response to the Obama-Biden proposal to lower taxes on the middle class, and to restore fiscal sanity post-Bush, McCain and others on the right are once more trotting out the old "Democrats want to tax you to death" smear. "McCain released a television ad [today] charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that 'a big government casts a big shadow on us all,' the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal." [emphasis added -- full credit to the AP for getting it right and reporting the truth]
Ah, fearmongering -- trying to scare the shit out of low-information voters. The Republicans do it so well, don't they? And, in this case, it's all just a blatant lie.
And it's even coming from my friend Ed Morrissey, one of the right's brighter lights, who titles his post, "Biden: Low taxes are unpatriotic."
Really? But that's not what Biden said -- and Ed knows that (he quotes him). What Biden said was that paying less than your fair share is unpatriotic, and that the wealthy are currently doing just that. It's called a progressive tax code: the wealthy pay a little more so that those below them, particularly in the ever-more-squeezed middle, can have their tax burden lessened -- and so that there can be fiscal sanity again.
What the right doesn't understand, although I'm sure Ed does, is that there's more to patriotism than wearing a flag lapel pin and chanting "USA! USA!" at every opportunity. The Republicans this year are all about "Country First," but of course that's all a facade, a riff off the myth of McCain. What they're really all about is flag-waving to score political points and to distract voters' attention away from the issues, on which they lag well behind the Democrats.
Actually, though, as the McCain-Palin campaign is proving, what they're really all about is lying to the American people.
On ABC's Good Morning America today, Joe Biden said this: "It's time to be patriotic... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." What he was referring to was taxes. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." In other words, wealthier people should pay more than they do now, particularly after Bush's plutocratic tax cuts.
In response to the Obama-Biden proposal to lower taxes on the middle class, and to restore fiscal sanity post-Bush, McCain and others on the right are once more trotting out the old "Democrats want to tax you to death" smear. "McCain released a television ad [today] charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that 'a big government casts a big shadow on us all,' the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal." [emphasis added -- full credit to the AP for getting it right and reporting the truth]
Ah, fearmongering -- trying to scare the shit out of low-information voters. The Republicans do it so well, don't they? And, in this case, it's all just a blatant lie.
And it's even coming from my friend Ed Morrissey, one of the right's brighter lights, who titles his post, "Biden: Low taxes are unpatriotic."
Really? But that's not what Biden said -- and Ed knows that (he quotes him). What Biden said was that paying less than your fair share is unpatriotic, and that the wealthy are currently doing just that. It's called a progressive tax code: the wealthy pay a little more so that those below them, particularly in the ever-more-squeezed middle, can have their tax burden lessened -- and so that there can be fiscal sanity again.
What the right doesn't understand, although I'm sure Ed does, is that there's more to patriotism than wearing a flag lapel pin and chanting "USA! USA!" at every opportunity. The Republicans this year are all about "Country First," but of course that's all a facade, a riff off the myth of McCain. What they're really all about is flag-waving to score political points and to distract voters' attention away from the issues, on which they lag well behind the Democrats.
Actually, though, as the McCain-Palin campaign is proving, what they're really all about is lying to the American people.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Stars and swipes
By J. Kingston Pierce
Republican’t U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma isn’t exactly renowned for his logical statements. After the media reported in 2004 on the abuse of inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, kicking
up a storm of protest and charges that the Bush administration had sacrificed U.S. credibility on the anti-torture front, the ultra-conservative Inhofe said with a straight face that he was “more outraged by the outrage than ... by the treatment” of those prisoners. This same out-of-touch right-winger has criticized the Red Cross for being “a bleeding heart” and declared that he was “really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”
Now this great sage of nonsense is attacking Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as someone who doesn’t love his country. He tells the Tulsa World:
Inhofe’s statements are stupid, on their face. And there’s of course a great deal more to consider in choosing a president than whether or not that person demonstrates rabid patriotism. Furthermore, Obama has demonstrated no less honest patriotism than George W. Bush disciple John “100 Years War” McCain.
And if Inhofe really believes that failing to wear a tiny American flag pin on one’s lapel demonstrates significant lack of patriotism, then he can be expected to vote for somebody other than McCain in November. In case Inhofe didn’t notice, the cranky 72-year-old Washington insider wasn’t wearing a flag pin when he accepted the Republican’t Party’s nomination for president on Thursday.
Proof is in the photo at the top of this post.
(Cross-posted at Limbo.)
Republican’t U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma isn’t exactly renowned for his logical statements. After the media reported in 2004 on the abuse of inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, kicking
up a storm of protest and charges that the Bush administration had sacrificed U.S. credibility on the anti-torture front, the ultra-conservative Inhofe said with a straight face that he was “more outraged by the outrage than ... by the treatment” of those prisoners. This same out-of-touch right-winger has criticized the Red Cross for being “a bleeding heart” and declared that he was “really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”Now this great sage of nonsense is attacking Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as someone who doesn’t love his country. He tells the Tulsa World:
Regardless of what polls show, Inhofe said, voters will have to ask themselves a question once they get behind the curtain in the voting booth on Election Day.
“Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?” he asked.
“That’s the big question.”
Shannon Gilson, spokeswoman for Obama, said Friday that he has a plan to strengthen the economy and offer immediate relief to working families, while Republican nominee John McCain and his Washington friends such as Inhofe are offering four more years of President Bush's failed economic policies.
“Sen. Obama won’t let anyone question his love of this country,” Gilson said.
“Challenging your opponent’s patriotism to win an election is the type of cynical partisan politics Americans are tired of--and won’t bring the change we need in Washington,” Gilson said.
After he was asked for an explanation on why voters should question Obama’s love for his country, Inhofe issued a written statement on Friday to clarify his earlier comments.
“Let me be clear,” he said.
“I am not questioning Sen. Obama’s patriotism, but you have to question why at times he seems so obviously opposed to public displays of patriotism and national pride, like wearing an American flag lapel pin.”
Inhofe’s statements are stupid, on their face. And there’s of course a great deal more to consider in choosing a president than whether or not that person demonstrates rabid patriotism. Furthermore, Obama has demonstrated no less honest patriotism than George W. Bush disciple John “100 Years War” McCain.
And if Inhofe really believes that failing to wear a tiny American flag pin on one’s lapel demonstrates significant lack of patriotism, then he can be expected to vote for somebody other than McCain in November. In case Inhofe didn’t notice, the cranky 72-year-old Washington insider wasn’t wearing a flag pin when he accepted the Republican’t Party’s nomination for president on Thursday.
Proof is in the photo at the top of this post.
(Cross-posted at Limbo.)
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Capture the flag
By Capt. Fogg
Paul Slansky makes a modest proposal today at The Huffington Post. He suggests that we fight them on their own lapels so that we don't have to fight them here. Quoting the popular political philosopher, Doctor Suess, Slansky suggests that we all begin to wear lapel pins, thus castrating one of their favorite shibboleths.
"We're exactly like you! You can't tell us apart.
Let's run it up the flagpole. It's an idea I can salute.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Paul Slansky makes a modest proposal today at The Huffington Post. He suggests that we fight them on their own lapels so that we don't have to fight them here. Quoting the popular political philosopher, Doctor Suess, Slansky suggests that we all begin to wear lapel pins, thus castrating one of their favorite shibboleths.
"We're exactly like you! You can't tell us apart. We're all just the same, now, you snooty old smarties!
And now we can go to your frankfurter parties."
Coincidentally, that's just what I did last night at my annual yacht club barbecue; a tawdry, rhinestone studded lapel pin at that. And it worked. No one had and doubts that I would snicker right along with the Michelle slurs, the hand on heart nonsense, the Wesley Clark gambit or any of the other wilful suspensions of honesty that characterize the political commentary of the reflexive Right. I wore red, white and blue clothing and I would have run "old glory" up the mast save for the violent thunderstorm. Some were quite surprised by my replies.
It's time we took back what was once a proud symbol of secular democracy, justice and the inalienability of certain human rights - amongst other things. The flag that flies today on the Moon somehow, during the same period, became the symbol of support for our war inViet Nam and the Nixonian contempt for law and loyal dissent. It has been a Republican symbol of militarism and right wing politics ever since.
As Slansky says, the lapel may be the only remaining venue in which they have that home field advantage, but it would be easy and cheap to take it away from them. Wear the pin.
"The right is reeling, they can't find a single thing to point to that's better than it was before Bush, so while they're busy dealing with issues of basic survival, let's just slip in there and take back the damn flag. Take it back from the war criminals and their apologists and enablers that have wrapped themselves in it even as they've been methodically destroying the republic for which it stands."
Let's run it up the flagpole. It's an idea I can salute.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Friday, April 4, 2008
A patriot regardless
By Creature
Via ThinkProgress we learn that Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry referred to one of our soldiers serving in Iraq as a "two-bit security guard." As Steve Benen points out, if this representative was a Democrat right-wing talking heads would be exploding across the country right now. However, what Steve forgets in this little "what if a Dem had said it" game, is that Rep. Patrick McHenry wears a flag lapel pin, and has a yellow ribbon on his SUV, so all is forgiven.
Update: It turns out our "two bit security guard" solider was actually a "two bit security guard" contractor. However, the point remains the same and the Dems would have been blasted either way.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Via ThinkProgress we learn that Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry referred to one of our soldiers serving in Iraq as a "two-bit security guard." As Steve Benen points out, if this representative was a Democrat right-wing talking heads would be exploding across the country right now. However, what Steve forgets in this little "what if a Dem had said it" game, is that Rep. Patrick McHenry wears a flag lapel pin, and has a yellow ribbon on his SUV, so all is forgiven.
Update: It turns out our "two bit security guard" solider was actually a "two bit security guard" contractor. However, the point remains the same and the Dems would have been blasted either way.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tin Pin Patriotism
By Capt. Fogg
Sigmund Freud talked about the narcissism of small differences; the tendency toward making the biggest fuss over people who are most nearly identical to us. It calls to mind the Clinton/Obama Celebrity Death Match the media are promoting for their own ends. They're the most nearly alike politically candidates we've seen in a long time, in my opinion, but that's not good for the 24/7 yackathon that the nattering nabobs need to maintain to keep ratings up.
You'd think nothing was happening on planet Earth other than bitter debates about lapel pins, and every manufactured nuance of expression is chewed to a disgusting mess like a rawhide dog toy. I don't wear a lapel pin and I won't as long as the people who made my country into a quasi-fascist imperialist plutocracy are in power. I don't trust anyone who wears one and I have not since the darkest days of the Viet Nam War when it was a symbol of support for that fraudulent, mismanaged and vicious enterprise.
I don't trust people who make an issue of a candidate not wearing a toy flag and it's obvious that many people who do are dishonest, because I and others like Crooks and Liars have noticed that John McCain is often seen without his Taiwanese Token of gumball machine patriotism too. Toe tapping Larry Craig, as T Rex points out, wore one for his police mug shot and if the hero of stall three wears one, you know it means something.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Sigmund Freud talked about the narcissism of small differences; the tendency toward making the biggest fuss over people who are most nearly identical to us. It calls to mind the Clinton/Obama Celebrity Death Match the media are promoting for their own ends. They're the most nearly alike politically candidates we've seen in a long time, in my opinion, but that's not good for the 24/7 yackathon that the nattering nabobs need to maintain to keep ratings up.
You'd think nothing was happening on planet Earth other than bitter debates about lapel pins, and every manufactured nuance of expression is chewed to a disgusting mess like a rawhide dog toy. I don't wear a lapel pin and I won't as long as the people who made my country into a quasi-fascist imperialist plutocracy are in power. I don't trust anyone who wears one and I have not since the darkest days of the Viet Nam War when it was a symbol of support for that fraudulent, mismanaged and vicious enterprise.
I don't trust people who make an issue of a candidate not wearing a toy flag and it's obvious that many people who do are dishonest, because I and others like Crooks and Liars have noticed that John McCain is often seen without his Taiwanese Token of gumball machine patriotism too. Toe tapping Larry Craig, as T Rex points out, wore one for his police mug shot and if the hero of stall three wears one, you know it means something.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Friday, November 9, 2007
More flags, fewer facts
By Capt. Fogg
I've been wondering when the swift boats would put to sea, but perhaps we will have to wait until the Democrats have chosen a candidate so that it doesn't become apparent that anyone and everyone opposing God's Own Party will be attacked. Until then we'll likely have an endless supply of cheap shots lobbed over the fence, like the viral picture of Obama in front of an obscenely large flag without his hand on his heart and the cynical outrage at Hillary Clinton's failure to leave a tip at a Toledo, Iowa diner that inspired a cartoon in today's New York Times. Meanwhile very few of us will have any idea of exactly what their health care proposals contain or what their economic policies would be like.
It's not clear whether a tip was actually left -- the Clinton staff said there was a $100 tip left -- and the photo of Obama was of course taken out of context from a a video that shows the Pledge of Allegiance was not being regurgitated when it was taken, but little by little, the sleaze brokers are going to chip away at the candidates' images, misinterpreting remarks, photoshopping images, and rearranging stories so as to make Democratic candidates seem unpatriotic, disdainful of the common man, and just plain un-American.
Of course, the attempt to remake Barack Obama as a closet Islamic radical didn't work for most of us and his failure to wear the requisite flag pin at every moment didn't really convert anyone to support of the Republican pandaemon and the stories about Hillary hiring hit men to go after an opponent's cat are less that credible, but each new piece of dung flung from their cage does work a slow erosion, a slow character assassination and an insidious diversion away from what America needs to save itself.
I care little where a president puts his hands unless it's into my pocket or onto the red button and I quite frankly don't give a damn about the illegal coercion in pledging allegiance to someone else's God or about flags or cheap jewelry or people who worship them while treating the constitution and our laws and our property with snickering disdain.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
I've been wondering when the swift boats would put to sea, but perhaps we will have to wait until the Democrats have chosen a candidate so that it doesn't become apparent that anyone and everyone opposing God's Own Party will be attacked. Until then we'll likely have an endless supply of cheap shots lobbed over the fence, like the viral picture of Obama in front of an obscenely large flag without his hand on his heart and the cynical outrage at Hillary Clinton's failure to leave a tip at a Toledo, Iowa diner that inspired a cartoon in today's New York Times. Meanwhile very few of us will have any idea of exactly what their health care proposals contain or what their economic policies would be like.
It's not clear whether a tip was actually left -- the Clinton staff said there was a $100 tip left -- and the photo of Obama was of course taken out of context from a a video that shows the Pledge of Allegiance was not being regurgitated when it was taken, but little by little, the sleaze brokers are going to chip away at the candidates' images, misinterpreting remarks, photoshopping images, and rearranging stories so as to make Democratic candidates seem unpatriotic, disdainful of the common man, and just plain un-American. Of course, the attempt to remake Barack Obama as a closet Islamic radical didn't work for most of us and his failure to wear the requisite flag pin at every moment didn't really convert anyone to support of the Republican pandaemon and the stories about Hillary hiring hit men to go after an opponent's cat are less that credible, but each new piece of dung flung from their cage does work a slow erosion, a slow character assassination and an insidious diversion away from what America needs to save itself.
I care little where a president puts his hands unless it's into my pocket or onto the red button and I quite frankly don't give a damn about the illegal coercion in pledging allegiance to someone else's God or about flags or cheap jewelry or people who worship them while treating the constitution and our laws and our property with snickering disdain.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Independence at risk
By Carol Gee
Cross-posted originally at South by Southwest in 2006. I originally wrote this post last July 4. This year I updated and share it with Reaction readers. The only major change this year is this: I substituted "entrenched" for "Republican" at "Legislative leaders."
The Fourth of July is America's celebration; its "Independence Day." On my "gratitude list" today I remain grateful that Democrats control the U.S. Congress, though yesterday I was really mad at them. My wish for them on this holiday is an infusion of committment to public service.
Oligarchy (Webster's) "a government in which a small group exercises control esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes"
Independent (Webster's) "(1) not subject to control by others (2) self-governing, (3) not affiliated with a larger controlling unit, (4) not looking to others for one's opinions or guidance in conduct, (5) showing a desire for freedom.
Who in the oligarchy jeopardizes the independence of the people of the United States? Which small group or groups are exercising too much control, governance or guidance over our independence? Which of these groups is selfish or corrupt?
- Corporations: oil & gas, banking, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, news media
- Special interests: neocons, right-wing evangelicals, political parties
- Lobbyists: ex-governmental officials, corporate representatives, 527s
- Think tanks: right-wing intellectuals, ex-governmental officials
- Legislative leaders: U.S. House and Senate's entrenched old leadership
- Wealthy individuals: 16% of the aggregate income in the U.S. went to the top one percent of the people. New England is the fastest growing area for rich people.
Today is Independence Day. On this day - 231 years ago in 1776 - colonists declared their independence from England. Which group or groups today appear to be selfish or corrupt? From whom will you declare independence? Can you be more self-governing? From whence can you get independent opinion and guidance? Think about it and decide.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Loyalty gone wild
By Carol Gee
There is a kind of theme I detected in several recent posts at The Reaction. Several have alluded to loyalty or disloyalty in one way or another. Is there such a thing as too much loyalty? Of course there is! (Perhaps I could be accused of same for "pimping" these posts, when I am so new to the group of co-bloggers.) But I do not think so. I and all other avid blog readers love a clever turn of phrase or an elegant skewering, particularly when it is at Republican expense. And these are what I'd like to point out with the following exerpts:
Whom to serve, the people or the boss?
Capt Fogg's "Special Pleadings" was about the sentencing of Scooter Libby from the questionable perspective of William Otis of the Washington Post. To quote, "In addition he thought he [Libby ]was serving his country by putting loyalty to the Bush administration above loyalty to the people and constitution of the United States."
Protecting their own syncophants -
Michael J.W. Stickings gets right to the heart of Bush admnistration loyalty at its worst, "No Confidence in Alberto Gonzales," with this great summary:
Bush can't always count on loyalty -
Creature in an earlier post, "The grand conservative compromise" opened with this wonderfully wrought sentence, "Loyal Libby apologist Bill Kristol, who just last week eviscerated the president for being a disloyal coward undeserving of respect, now predicts that his "fallen soldier" buddy, I. Scooter Libby, will get the commuted sentence Paris Hilton could only dream of."
Who's the friend, who's the enemy?
Later Creature posted a piece exploring our new "alliance" with Iraqi Sunnis. Who is the enemy of whose enemy in that incredibly convoluted tapestry of ephemeral Iraqi loyalties?
Havoc wrought through loyalty -
J. Kingston Pierce looks at former Secretary of State Colin "Powell - born-again maverick" who, to quote, ". . . effectively destroyed any chance he had of a future career in elective politics by providing George W. Bush with cover he needed to invade Iraq in 2003." Our blogger continues with a quote from Powell indicating that he might not necessarily vote GOP in 2008, and then this great conclusion,
Democrats have little sympathy for Republicans who let blind loyalty get in the way of decent public service. And we,of course, know the pain of what it feels like when someone we trust becomes disloyal. The thing to remember, however, is that United States citizens paid the salaries of these people. The transgressors never had permission to act as if their salaries were personally paid by the boss. Because we pay his, too!
There is a kind of theme I detected in several recent posts at The Reaction. Several have alluded to loyalty or disloyalty in one way or another. Is there such a thing as too much loyalty? Of course there is! (Perhaps I could be accused of same for "pimping" these posts, when I am so new to the group of co-bloggers.) But I do not think so. I and all other avid blog readers love a clever turn of phrase or an elegant skewering, particularly when it is at Republican expense. And these are what I'd like to point out with the following exerpts:
Whom to serve, the people or the boss?
Capt Fogg's "Special Pleadings" was about the sentencing of Scooter Libby from the questionable perspective of William Otis of the Washington Post. To quote, "In addition he thought he [Libby ]was serving his country by putting loyalty to the Bush administration above loyalty to the people and constitution of the United States."
Protecting their own syncophants -
Michael J.W. Stickings gets right to the heart of Bush admnistration loyalty at its worst, "No Confidence in Alberto Gonzales," with this great summary:
"He will survive today's vote only because it is non-binding, because Republicans will close ranks to protect one of their own, even one whose conduct has been as reprehensible as Gonzales's, and because he still enjoys the support of the president -- likely because Bush loves to surround himself with sycophants, of which Gonzales is one of the more repugnant, and because he hates to give in to pressure from his critics, that is, because he is stubborn.
Bush can't always count on loyalty -
Creature in an earlier post, "The grand conservative compromise" opened with this wonderfully wrought sentence, "Loyal Libby apologist Bill Kristol, who just last week eviscerated the president for being a disloyal coward undeserving of respect, now predicts that his "fallen soldier" buddy, I. Scooter Libby, will get the commuted sentence Paris Hilton could only dream of."
Who's the friend, who's the enemy?
Later Creature posted a piece exploring our new "alliance" with Iraqi Sunnis. Who is the enemy of whose enemy in that incredibly convoluted tapestry of ephemeral Iraqi loyalties?
Havoc wrought through loyalty -
J. Kingston Pierce looks at former Secretary of State Colin "Powell - born-again maverick" who, to quote, ". . . effectively destroyed any chance he had of a future career in elective politics by providing George W. Bush with cover he needed to invade Iraq in 2003." Our blogger continues with a quote from Powell indicating that he might not necessarily vote GOP in 2008, and then this great conclusion,
As Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog points out, such coyness about party choice is “just not done in GOP world. Loyalty comes first.” Apparently, Powell didn’t get the memo. Or maybe he’s just seen what havoc can be wrought through loyalty.
Democrats have little sympathy for Republicans who let blind loyalty get in the way of decent public service. And we,of course, know the pain of what it feels like when someone we trust becomes disloyal. The thing to remember, however, is that United States citizens paid the salaries of these people. The transgressors never had permission to act as if their salaries were personally paid by the boss. Because we pay his, too!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Loyalty and dissent
By Michael J.W. Stickings
In much of the world, today is May Day -- or Labour Day, or International Workers' Day.
In the U.S., which doesn't much go in for socialism, it's Loyalty Day.
Yes, Loyalty Day. (It used to be Americanization Day, which sounds even worse.) And Bush proclaimed it so.
To be fair, some of Bush's platitudinous proclamation was fine: "We believe deeply in freedom and self-government..." That Bush is requesting loyalty at a time when America, under his "leadership," is embroiled in a disastrous foreign war -- and that he is requesting it on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech -- is not fine. Not at all.
In fact, it's all quite sickening. (Bob Geiger explains.)
And, I must say, I find the whole idea of state-ordered (or even state-suggested) loyalty distressingly unpleasant. It's all rather -- how shall I put it? -- Khmer Rougish.
After all, what does it mean to be loyal?
Bush referred to "reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation," but even that is vague and collectivist. So is just about flying the flag? Not for Bush, who connects it to the military. So is it about "the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency". To a point, but is it also about supporting what those men and women are doing in uniform? Beyond that, is it about supporting those who sent those men and women off to war? Is it about supporting the state, or the leader?
Which is my point -- where does loyalty stop and 1984-ish love for Big Brother begin? It seems to me that Bush and many of those on his side of the political divide demand the sort of allegiance that pushes genuine patriotism into the dangerous gray area between conscious loyalty and unconscious devotion.
When it's beaten into you, even in speech, you may have no choice but to acquiesce, to love that which has destroyed you.
Sameness is celebrated, difference is abhorred. If you're not with us, you're against us.
Which is profoundly un-American, I would contend, unless this is precisely what America, under Bush, has become.
Born in revolution, an ongoing experiment, a fusion of ancient and modern thought, a nation of noble ideals sustained by liberal and progressive ideas, America was never meant to be something to which one would be unconsciously devoted.
So on this Loyalty Day, with the country at war, with the Constitution under threat, with the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence receding ever further into oblivion, I say this:
Be an American. Dissent.
In much of the world, today is May Day -- or Labour Day, or International Workers' Day.
In the U.S., which doesn't much go in for socialism, it's Loyalty Day.
Yes, Loyalty Day. (It used to be Americanization Day, which sounds even worse.) And Bush proclaimed it so.
To be fair, some of Bush's platitudinous proclamation was fine: "We believe deeply in freedom and self-government..." That Bush is requesting loyalty at a time when America, under his "leadership," is embroiled in a disastrous foreign war -- and that he is requesting it on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech -- is not fine. Not at all.
In fact, it's all quite sickening. (Bob Geiger explains.)
And, I must say, I find the whole idea of state-ordered (or even state-suggested) loyalty distressingly unpleasant. It's all rather -- how shall I put it? -- Khmer Rougish.
After all, what does it mean to be loyal?
Bush referred to "reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation," but even that is vague and collectivist. So is just about flying the flag? Not for Bush, who connects it to the military. So is it about "the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency". To a point, but is it also about supporting what those men and women are doing in uniform? Beyond that, is it about supporting those who sent those men and women off to war? Is it about supporting the state, or the leader?
Which is my point -- where does loyalty stop and 1984-ish love for Big Brother begin? It seems to me that Bush and many of those on his side of the political divide demand the sort of allegiance that pushes genuine patriotism into the dangerous gray area between conscious loyalty and unconscious devotion.
When it's beaten into you, even in speech, you may have no choice but to acquiesce, to love that which has destroyed you.
Sameness is celebrated, difference is abhorred. If you're not with us, you're against us.
Which is profoundly un-American, I would contend, unless this is precisely what America, under Bush, has become.
Born in revolution, an ongoing experiment, a fusion of ancient and modern thought, a nation of noble ideals sustained by liberal and progressive ideas, America was never meant to be something to which one would be unconsciously devoted.
So on this Loyalty Day, with the country at war, with the Constitution under threat, with the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence receding ever further into oblivion, I say this:
Be an American. Dissent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
