Category: Farmer's Favorites
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
It is certainly no secret how much I admire David Petraeus. But I stumbled upon this post today from eighteen months ago. Read it and remember how bad things were when this fellow took command of Iraq.
January 6, 2007
For three years of war, the Bush administration deluded itself into thinking that they sat atop a generational political realignment. Karl Rove et al saw George Bush as a McKinley-like figure who had inaugurated a decades-long Republican dynasty.
What is wrong with dynasty? Dynasty lacks accountability.
No pressure in Iraq guys, we have a compliant Congress. Don't bother selling this to the American people, they understand GOP means patriotism, peace through strength, and a no-nonsense view of the world; we speak the same language; the electorate is in the bag.
Now George Bush is operating within a new model. The administration understands all too well today that the American people are fed up with where we are in Iraq, and we want to quit. This past election saw crushing defeats for the President and his policy, and the next election, if we are in the same position in Iraq, will be much worse.
An aside: At least one of two things is true: the President and his brain trust badly misjudged the obstacles in the Middle East, and/or the President failed miserably in articulating what was ahead of us and preparing us as a nation for the long siege against Islamism, history and fifty years of American foreign policy in the region that works against us.
What can Bush do? He can give up. He can pack up the troops and bring them home. He can say he made a huge mistake. He can ask forgiveness and reach across the aisle for help in shutting down military operations. He can say his heart was in the right place, but events overwhelmed him. We wish the people of Iraq the best, and we hope that the Middle East finds the right path on the long highway of life--but we are done.
Or he can say damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. I am certain that the President is going to give this project one more shot. The President must understand, finally, that he has used up all his “political capital.” For a very brief period, he can stand against an electoral mandate and a hostile Congress--but not for long. He must make decisive progress, and it must come quickly.
With the clock winding down, President Bush is putting the ball in the hands of Lt. Gen David H. Petraeus. Is victory still possible? Stranger things have happened. Generals Grant and Sherman turned the tide for President Lincoln during desperate times. Has President Bush found himself a fighting general? Perhaps more importantly, is George Bush ready to be a fighting president?
Here is a New York Post column from Ralph Peters, who argues that Petraeus is capable but possibly not belligerent enough.
A profile of Petraeus from the Washington Post here.
January 6, 2007
For three years of war, the Bush administration deluded itself into thinking that they sat atop a generational political realignment. Karl Rove et al saw George Bush as a McKinley-like figure who had inaugurated a decades-long Republican dynasty.
What is wrong with dynasty? Dynasty lacks accountability.
No pressure in Iraq guys, we have a compliant Congress. Don't bother selling this to the American people, they understand GOP means patriotism, peace through strength, and a no-nonsense view of the world; we speak the same language; the electorate is in the bag.
Now George Bush is operating within a new model. The administration understands all too well today that the American people are fed up with where we are in Iraq, and we want to quit. This past election saw crushing defeats for the President and his policy, and the next election, if we are in the same position in Iraq, will be much worse.
An aside: At least one of two things is true: the President and his brain trust badly misjudged the obstacles in the Middle East, and/or the President failed miserably in articulating what was ahead of us and preparing us as a nation for the long siege against Islamism, history and fifty years of American foreign policy in the region that works against us.
What can Bush do? He can give up. He can pack up the troops and bring them home. He can say he made a huge mistake. He can ask forgiveness and reach across the aisle for help in shutting down military operations. He can say his heart was in the right place, but events overwhelmed him. We wish the people of Iraq the best, and we hope that the Middle East finds the right path on the long highway of life--but we are done.
Or he can say damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. I am certain that the President is going to give this project one more shot. The President must understand, finally, that he has used up all his “political capital.” For a very brief period, he can stand against an electoral mandate and a hostile Congress--but not for long. He must make decisive progress, and it must come quickly.
With the clock winding down, President Bush is putting the ball in the hands of Lt. Gen David H. Petraeus. Is victory still possible? Stranger things have happened. Generals Grant and Sherman turned the tide for President Lincoln during desperate times. Has President Bush found himself a fighting general? Perhaps more importantly, is George Bush ready to be a fighting president?
Here is a New York Post column from Ralph Peters, who argues that Petraeus is capable but possibly not belligerent enough.
A profile of Petraeus from the Washington Post here.
Can McCain win the upcoming Fall Election? Unlikely--but not impossible.
My advice to GOP die hards: deal honestly with the percentages. Take a deep breath and say to yourself three times: "Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States." Prepare yourself.
Why?
1. Barack Obama is taut and handsome; John McCain is weathered and shrunken. Obama is young, vibrant, and charismatic; McCain is old and faded. Obama can deliver a speech with the best of all time; McCain is haltingly inarticulate. Obama shows all the signs of true political genius; McCain is an old warhorse.
2. The Republican brand is at its nadir and inextricably linked to the most unpopular president of the electronic age. The Democrats are not stellar---but they have the distinct advantage this cycle of not being Republicans.
3. The uncertain economy (exacerbated by the ubiquitous breathless reporting thereof) has us all dazed and queasy, nervously waiting for the other shoe to finally drop.
4. The mainstream media is invested in Obama--and they will surely (most have already) turn on their former favorite Republican, McCain.
5. Even worse, McCain cannot seem to get any traction within GOP ranks. Quite frankly, it remains a mystery to me how he even won the nomination. I am quite sure that I am the only Republican I know who voted for him.
Unfortunately, this is merely a partial enumeration; the list of McCain disadvantages goes on...and on.
And, again, Obama is a remarkable candidate. He possesses an extraordinary political IQ. He has impeccable timing, as demonstrated in his stunning nomination victory---knowing when and exactly how to challenge a 500-pound gorilla, how to make hay while the sun shone, and when to hunker down and weather a pretty horrible three months at the conclusion of the primary season. He has expertly exploited every one of his advantages of character and culture. He seems to know when to ignore, when to obfuscate, when to deny, and when to renounce (think Jeremiah Wright). And he shows no sign of getting any dumber between now and November.
What about some of McCain's strengths?
John McCain has experience in government, and he is a war hero. Does that count for anything? Not really.
Americans do not elect presidents based on foreign policy. If we did, no one would even remember Bill Clinton, the youthful Arkansas governor who unseated the steadiest and most capable chief executive of the twentieth century in the midst of the most dramatic moment in American foreign relations history. America's reaction to that ultimate defining geopolitical crossroads back in 1992? A big long yawn. What we really wanted was someone who could feel our pain and not look at his watch during debates.
Americans are not particularly impressed with war heroes either. Think about 1992 again and 1996. The WWII heroics of George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole proved virtually meaningless against a Bill Clinton who had avoided military service under questionable circumstances. And what about John Kerry? Democrats thought they had pulled a fast one on the red, white, and blue crowd---but, again, politics trumped dog tags. The Vietnam veteran awarded three Purple Hearts lost to National Guardsman George W. Bush in 2004. I am afraid that the electorate is in agreement with Wesley Clark on this one, military service doesn't carry a lot of weight in the presidential sweepstakes.
Having said all that, John McCain has an outside, long-shot chance to pull off the biggest upset in the history of modern American presidential elections.
Why?
There is something slightly disturbing about Barack Obama.
It is not race. His pigment makes him unique among prior serious candidates for president, no doubt, but in the year 2008 we generally like that he is a person of bi-racial parentage.
It is not the rumor that there is a rumor that he is Muslim. Newsweek reported last week that 10 percent of persons polled mistakenly believed that Obama was Muslim. Quite frankly, that number is a relief (shockingly small). Turn it around: 90 percent of Americans do not misidentify him as a Muslim. Could 90 percent of Americans identify the vice president? Speaker of the House? Could 90 percent of Americans name the three branches of government? Remember the National Geographic poll from a few years back (merely a few months subsequent to Hurricane Katrina) in which 33 percent of the respondents could not point out Louisiana on a U.S. map. Ninety percent of Americans comprehend that Barack Hussein Obama is not Muslim! That is an amazingly promising statistic.
Neither is his exotic and unfortunate appellation much of a real problem. Of course, it is almost sinisterly comical in its blending of two American villains, but, keep in mind, we elected Dwight Eisenhower a mere seven years after the conclusion of an all-consuming war between the USA and the nation of Ike's German ancestors. In the end, what's in a name?
However, aside from all that there is something that is not quite right about Obama. His Ivy League elitism and internationalism-slash-cosmopolitanism rankles some. His America-hating, race-baiting, former pastor of twenty years leaves a bad taste. His wife's remarks concerning her national pride makes us wonder. His association with an unrepentant sixties radical and domestic terrorist is unsavory. His inconsistent position on flag pins makes us chuckle at him (not with him). His unwillingness to pay his political dues strikes some of us as a disconnection with traditional American values. Taken together, these are traits about the man that set off alarm bells. He does not seem to be one of us.
Three "P"s: Patriotism, Petraeus, and Petroleum.
Add all those things up and we have an uneasy feeling, which we struggle to articulate under some broad and nebulous idea--perhaps like "patriotism." This attempt at identification is not quite right, not quite satisfying--but it may be as close as we can get, finding ourselves limited by language--an imperfect form of communication.
But the fact that he is already delivering speeches explaining and defending his patriotism proves that he has a patriotism problem--for lack of a better word. Again, this deficiency is hard to confront directly; therefore, it is hard to extinguish.
Petraeus. This may seem contradictory in light of my thesis above: "Americans don't have much patience or capacity for foreign policy questions during a presidential election." Hit people hard with something scary like a "missile gap" or another terrorist attack and you might score a few points in the short run---but, generally, big and complicated issues like the Cold War or the War on Terror don't tickle the fancy of your standard citizen.
However, as unpopular as the war in Iraq remains with a vast majority of voters, there is a growing number of Americans who see progress in that interminable war. When pressed, these folks do not actually want to walk away from our investment in the Middle East, unwilling to give back the demonstrable and increasingly undeniable gains we've registered recently.
A growing number of Americans see General David Petraeus as the symbol of our recent upward turn of fortunes. Obama's non-relationship with Petraeus is part of his overall awkwardness (his delay in condemning the radical left for the "General Betray-us" controversy points up his lack of dexterity in this area). Obama's opponents ask why he will meet with Ahmed Ahmadinejad unconditionally---but he has never met America's great winning general. A lot is riding on Candidate Obama's visit to Iraq to meet with the Cen-Com chief in August. I don't see how Obama ever squares his anti-war stance with the image of Petraeus as a heroic man of honor, vision, and surprising success.
His lack of relationship with David Petraeus is increasingly awkward and seems unpresidential.
Petroleum. Four-dollar per gallon gasoline.
The Democrats are nearly completely beholden to environmentalists who are adamantly opposed to aggressive new drilling and refining policies as well as politically incorrect alternate fuels. A major pivot before the Fall Election is highly unlikely (although, after the last two weeks of Obama's shamelessly clever re-positioning, nothing is impossible). The Republicans, on the other hand, are in perfect position to propose a pragmatic policy of increased exploration, drilling, and refining that will strike so many of those swing voters as a perfectly reasonable response to a vital question.
Could it happen?
A Republican victory in November remains improbable---but not impossible.
My advice to GOP die hards: deal honestly with the percentages. Take a deep breath and say to yourself three times: "Barack Obama is going to be the next president of the United States." Prepare yourself.
Why?
1. Barack Obama is taut and handsome; John McCain is weathered and shrunken. Obama is young, vibrant, and charismatic; McCain is old and faded. Obama can deliver a speech with the best of all time; McCain is haltingly inarticulate. Obama shows all the signs of true political genius; McCain is an old warhorse.
2. The Republican brand is at its nadir and inextricably linked to the most unpopular president of the electronic age. The Democrats are not stellar---but they have the distinct advantage this cycle of not being Republicans.
3. The uncertain economy (exacerbated by the ubiquitous breathless reporting thereof) has us all dazed and queasy, nervously waiting for the other shoe to finally drop.
4. The mainstream media is invested in Obama--and they will surely (most have already) turn on their former favorite Republican, McCain.
5. Even worse, McCain cannot seem to get any traction within GOP ranks. Quite frankly, it remains a mystery to me how he even won the nomination. I am quite sure that I am the only Republican I know who voted for him.
Unfortunately, this is merely a partial enumeration; the list of McCain disadvantages goes on...and on.
And, again, Obama is a remarkable candidate. He possesses an extraordinary political IQ. He has impeccable timing, as demonstrated in his stunning nomination victory---knowing when and exactly how to challenge a 500-pound gorilla, how to make hay while the sun shone, and when to hunker down and weather a pretty horrible three months at the conclusion of the primary season. He has expertly exploited every one of his advantages of character and culture. He seems to know when to ignore, when to obfuscate, when to deny, and when to renounce (think Jeremiah Wright). And he shows no sign of getting any dumber between now and November.
What about some of McCain's strengths?
John McCain has experience in government, and he is a war hero. Does that count for anything? Not really.
Americans do not elect presidents based on foreign policy. If we did, no one would even remember Bill Clinton, the youthful Arkansas governor who unseated the steadiest and most capable chief executive of the twentieth century in the midst of the most dramatic moment in American foreign relations history. America's reaction to that ultimate defining geopolitical crossroads back in 1992? A big long yawn. What we really wanted was someone who could feel our pain and not look at his watch during debates.
Americans are not particularly impressed with war heroes either. Think about 1992 again and 1996. The WWII heroics of George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole proved virtually meaningless against a Bill Clinton who had avoided military service under questionable circumstances. And what about John Kerry? Democrats thought they had pulled a fast one on the red, white, and blue crowd---but, again, politics trumped dog tags. The Vietnam veteran awarded three Purple Hearts lost to National Guardsman George W. Bush in 2004. I am afraid that the electorate is in agreement with Wesley Clark on this one, military service doesn't carry a lot of weight in the presidential sweepstakes.
Having said all that, John McCain has an outside, long-shot chance to pull off the biggest upset in the history of modern American presidential elections.
Why?
There is something slightly disturbing about Barack Obama.
It is not race. His pigment makes him unique among prior serious candidates for president, no doubt, but in the year 2008 we generally like that he is a person of bi-racial parentage.
It is not the rumor that there is a rumor that he is Muslim. Newsweek reported last week that 10 percent of persons polled mistakenly believed that Obama was Muslim. Quite frankly, that number is a relief (shockingly small). Turn it around: 90 percent of Americans do not misidentify him as a Muslim. Could 90 percent of Americans identify the vice president? Speaker of the House? Could 90 percent of Americans name the three branches of government? Remember the National Geographic poll from a few years back (merely a few months subsequent to Hurricane Katrina) in which 33 percent of the respondents could not point out Louisiana on a U.S. map. Ninety percent of Americans comprehend that Barack Hussein Obama is not Muslim! That is an amazingly promising statistic.
Neither is his exotic and unfortunate appellation much of a real problem. Of course, it is almost sinisterly comical in its blending of two American villains, but, keep in mind, we elected Dwight Eisenhower a mere seven years after the conclusion of an all-consuming war between the USA and the nation of Ike's German ancestors. In the end, what's in a name?
However, aside from all that there is something that is not quite right about Obama. His Ivy League elitism and internationalism-slash-cosmopolitanism rankles some. His America-hating, race-baiting, former pastor of twenty years leaves a bad taste. His wife's remarks concerning her national pride makes us wonder. His association with an unrepentant sixties radical and domestic terrorist is unsavory. His inconsistent position on flag pins makes us chuckle at him (not with him). His unwillingness to pay his political dues strikes some of us as a disconnection with traditional American values. Taken together, these are traits about the man that set off alarm bells. He does not seem to be one of us.
Three "P"s: Patriotism, Petraeus, and Petroleum.
Add all those things up and we have an uneasy feeling, which we struggle to articulate under some broad and nebulous idea--perhaps like "patriotism." This attempt at identification is not quite right, not quite satisfying--but it may be as close as we can get, finding ourselves limited by language--an imperfect form of communication.
But the fact that he is already delivering speeches explaining and defending his patriotism proves that he has a patriotism problem--for lack of a better word. Again, this deficiency is hard to confront directly; therefore, it is hard to extinguish.
Petraeus. This may seem contradictory in light of my thesis above: "Americans don't have much patience or capacity for foreign policy questions during a presidential election." Hit people hard with something scary like a "missile gap" or another terrorist attack and you might score a few points in the short run---but, generally, big and complicated issues like the Cold War or the War on Terror don't tickle the fancy of your standard citizen.
However, as unpopular as the war in Iraq remains with a vast majority of voters, there is a growing number of Americans who see progress in that interminable war. When pressed, these folks do not actually want to walk away from our investment in the Middle East, unwilling to give back the demonstrable and increasingly undeniable gains we've registered recently.
A growing number of Americans see General David Petraeus as the symbol of our recent upward turn of fortunes. Obama's non-relationship with Petraeus is part of his overall awkwardness (his delay in condemning the radical left for the "General Betray-us" controversy points up his lack of dexterity in this area). Obama's opponents ask why he will meet with Ahmed Ahmadinejad unconditionally---but he has never met America's great winning general. A lot is riding on Candidate Obama's visit to Iraq to meet with the Cen-Com chief in August. I don't see how Obama ever squares his anti-war stance with the image of Petraeus as a heroic man of honor, vision, and surprising success.
His lack of relationship with David Petraeus is increasingly awkward and seems unpresidential.
Petroleum. Four-dollar per gallon gasoline.
The Democrats are nearly completely beholden to environmentalists who are adamantly opposed to aggressive new drilling and refining policies as well as politically incorrect alternate fuels. A major pivot before the Fall Election is highly unlikely (although, after the last two weeks of Obama's shamelessly clever re-positioning, nothing is impossible). The Republicans, on the other hand, are in perfect position to propose a pragmatic policy of increased exploration, drilling, and refining that will strike so many of those swing voters as a perfectly reasonable response to a vital question.
Could it happen?
A Republican victory in November remains improbable---but not impossible.
10/07: Someone Noticed
Category: General
Posted by: Tocqueville
A tip of the hat to the fine folks at Investors Business Daily (a much better investment publication than The Wall Street Journal and, in fact, a better editorial page -- although both are excellent) for noticing the 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium coming out of Iraq.
Also, what would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Find out here.
Also, what would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Find out here.
The pastors of two large and prominent Presbyterian (PCUSA) churches are reacting negatively to the decision of the recent General Assembly to attempt a change in the denomination's constitution that would remove the clause requiring sexual faithfulness within marriage as the only biblical sexual expression. Story in the Layman Online.
Pastor Vic Pentz, of the Peachtree Presbyterian church in Atlanta, the denomination's largest congregation with 8700 members stated that the PCUSA is
a slow motion train wreck for the past thirty years. . . . the smoke seems at last to have cleared, and the steaming debris of the PCUSA has settled into place. It's not a pretty sight. One thing (is) for sure: this Humpty won't be getting back together again for a long time, if ever.
. . .
The battle is lost for evangelical renewal groups within the system. The old 'stay-fight-and win' strategy is history."
Pastor Ron Scates of the Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas said
The PCUSA is clearly on a path of self-destruction in cutting herself off from the larger, global church, . . . [the denomination is taking a] different path than the path God has revealed to the Church in His Word.
Highland Park Presbyterian will be considering withholding funds from the denomination.
If these two major and influential churches leave the PCUSA, expect an exodus. On the plus side, with these two responses, the proposed changes to the Constitution may be dead in the water with the presbyteries, where similar proposals have been rejected twice in the last ten years.
Previous post on the General Assembly actions this summer.
Hard to believe that the major source of theology for the fundamentalist movement in America came from the nineteenth-century faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary, the flagship Presbyterian seminary. After chapel on weekday mornings I drank coffee with friends under the portrait of B. B. Warfield.
Pastor Vic Pentz, of the Peachtree Presbyterian church in Atlanta, the denomination's largest congregation with 8700 members stated that the PCUSA is
a slow motion train wreck for the past thirty years. . . . the smoke seems at last to have cleared, and the steaming debris of the PCUSA has settled into place. It's not a pretty sight. One thing (is) for sure: this Humpty won't be getting back together again for a long time, if ever.
. . .
The battle is lost for evangelical renewal groups within the system. The old 'stay-fight-and win' strategy is history."
Pastor Ron Scates of the Highland Park Presbyterian Church in Dallas said
The PCUSA is clearly on a path of self-destruction in cutting herself off from the larger, global church, . . . [the denomination is taking a] different path than the path God has revealed to the Church in His Word.
Highland Park Presbyterian will be considering withholding funds from the denomination.
If these two major and influential churches leave the PCUSA, expect an exodus. On the plus side, with these two responses, the proposed changes to the Constitution may be dead in the water with the presbyteries, where similar proposals have been rejected twice in the last ten years.
Previous post on the General Assembly actions this summer.
Hard to believe that the major source of theology for the fundamentalist movement in America came from the nineteenth-century faculty of the Princeton Theological Seminary, the flagship Presbyterian seminary. After chapel on weekday mornings I drank coffee with friends under the portrait of B. B. Warfield.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
British pupils stymied by chemistry quiz questions from the 1960s. Story here. From The Mail.
07/07: On Patriotism
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
pa·tri·ot·ism
n. Love of and devotion to one's country.
Samuel Johnson famously pronounced "patriotism...the last refuge of a scoundrel." While one might impute a number of possible meanings to that famous saying (the 1775 context for the assertion is not extant), modern skeptics of American history and government oftentimes interpret this observation as a general caution against extreme patriotism.
The other day I entered into a discussion with a Progressive friend who professed a profound admiration for his country.
Why is America great?
What engendered feelings of national pride in his heart?
1. America FINALLY recognized the equal rights of all its citizens regardless of race.
2. America FINALLY recognized the worth of its female citizens, although, he was quick to add, we could not bring ourselves to put this development in writing (ERA).
3. America FINALLY stood up to defend the rights of African Americans, ninety-odd years after initially according those rights.
4. America FINALLY seemed to be stepping forward to combat poverty, hunger, and AIDS in less fortunate parts of the world.
My reaction: those are all good things, no doubt--but I could not shake the sense that they were also condemnations in the guise of faint praise. They all struck me as a bit grudging and back-handed. The rhythmic "FINALLY" seemed to me gratuitously ubiquitous.
Was he saying America was a pretty crumby country while we allowed slavery? Were we a pretty lousy nation for the ninety-nine years after outlawing slavery in which African Americans faced egregious discrimination?
Granted, slavery, racism, and sexism were (and are) bad things--but do the American blemishes overshadow the triumphs?
If I were going to tell our story, I think I would begin with the great and positive impact the United States of America made on the history of the world--and, then, for some balance, I would talk about some of the ways in which we fell short of our own aspirations. But I might also note that we often judge the American past against present standards, which, ironically, would not be the accepted benchmarks of civility and equality--if not for the United States of America.
My point: to lead with our flaws may be factual, strictly speaking, but it is also misleading. This is not the way we would introduce a friend or a loved one. Generally, in our relationships with people we like, we do not dwell on the very worst aspect of their personalities.
We don't say: "This is my colleague. He is a recovering alcoholic." It may be true and an impoprtant component of who he is--but, if this is a friend whom we admire, that part of his life taken alone does not accurately convey his story.
America, right or wrong.
My Progressive friend also took a moment to inveigh against the notion of "America, right or wrong," which he construed as a simplistic statement of blind and unquestioning allegiance to US policies and actions.
I have long wondered at this interpretation of that particular expression of support. Do people consciously misconstrue this straightforward and heartfelt expression of patriotism? I know my friend to be a person of good will and sincerity, so I will accept his construction as an honest difference of opinion, but what is so offensive about a pledge of unconditional love for the United States of America? Why do some listeners always seem to hear that phrase with such radical ears?
Would he have trouble with this statement?
"My wife, right or wrong."
Would you necessarily assume that I am asserting that my wife is always right? Or wouldn't you more rationally assume that I am saying that my wife is right sometimes and wrong sometimes (and I reserve the right to debate those matters with her privately)--but I support her (especially in public) regardless. Why? Because she is my wife, and I love her unconditionally. I have made a vow before God and man to love her in sickness and in health.
I love America unconditionally. I love America when George Bush is president. I love America when Bill Clinton is president. I will love America when Barack Obama is president. I often disagree with the policies of my government, and I reserve the right to debate those policies within our system of self government--but I continue to love America.
Unconditional love does not mean blind faith and unquestioning allegiance, but an unconditional love is definitely part of "the bonds of affection" and the "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land," which, spoken of long ago, continues to unify and uplift.
May God Bless America.
n. Love of and devotion to one's country.
Samuel Johnson famously pronounced "patriotism...the last refuge of a scoundrel." While one might impute a number of possible meanings to that famous saying (the 1775 context for the assertion is not extant), modern skeptics of American history and government oftentimes interpret this observation as a general caution against extreme patriotism.
The other day I entered into a discussion with a Progressive friend who professed a profound admiration for his country.
Why is America great?
What engendered feelings of national pride in his heart?
1. America FINALLY recognized the equal rights of all its citizens regardless of race.
2. America FINALLY recognized the worth of its female citizens, although, he was quick to add, we could not bring ourselves to put this development in writing (ERA).
3. America FINALLY stood up to defend the rights of African Americans, ninety-odd years after initially according those rights.
4. America FINALLY seemed to be stepping forward to combat poverty, hunger, and AIDS in less fortunate parts of the world.
My reaction: those are all good things, no doubt--but I could not shake the sense that they were also condemnations in the guise of faint praise. They all struck me as a bit grudging and back-handed. The rhythmic "FINALLY" seemed to me gratuitously ubiquitous.
Was he saying America was a pretty crumby country while we allowed slavery? Were we a pretty lousy nation for the ninety-nine years after outlawing slavery in which African Americans faced egregious discrimination?
Granted, slavery, racism, and sexism were (and are) bad things--but do the American blemishes overshadow the triumphs?
If I were going to tell our story, I think I would begin with the great and positive impact the United States of America made on the history of the world--and, then, for some balance, I would talk about some of the ways in which we fell short of our own aspirations. But I might also note that we often judge the American past against present standards, which, ironically, would not be the accepted benchmarks of civility and equality--if not for the United States of America.
My point: to lead with our flaws may be factual, strictly speaking, but it is also misleading. This is not the way we would introduce a friend or a loved one. Generally, in our relationships with people we like, we do not dwell on the very worst aspect of their personalities.
We don't say: "This is my colleague. He is a recovering alcoholic." It may be true and an impoprtant component of who he is--but, if this is a friend whom we admire, that part of his life taken alone does not accurately convey his story.
America, right or wrong.
My Progressive friend also took a moment to inveigh against the notion of "America, right or wrong," which he construed as a simplistic statement of blind and unquestioning allegiance to US policies and actions.
I have long wondered at this interpretation of that particular expression of support. Do people consciously misconstrue this straightforward and heartfelt expression of patriotism? I know my friend to be a person of good will and sincerity, so I will accept his construction as an honest difference of opinion, but what is so offensive about a pledge of unconditional love for the United States of America? Why do some listeners always seem to hear that phrase with such radical ears?
Would he have trouble with this statement?
"My wife, right or wrong."
Would you necessarily assume that I am asserting that my wife is always right? Or wouldn't you more rationally assume that I am saying that my wife is right sometimes and wrong sometimes (and I reserve the right to debate those matters with her privately)--but I support her (especially in public) regardless. Why? Because she is my wife, and I love her unconditionally. I have made a vow before God and man to love her in sickness and in health.
I love America unconditionally. I love America when George Bush is president. I love America when Bill Clinton is president. I will love America when Barack Obama is president. I often disagree with the policies of my government, and I reserve the right to debate those policies within our system of self government--but I continue to love America.
Unconditional love does not mean blind faith and unquestioning allegiance, but an unconditional love is definitely part of "the bonds of affection" and the "mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land," which, spoken of long ago, continues to unify and uplift.
May God Bless America.
This is what happens when the checks on power are gone. The unscrupulous grab power and keep it by whatever means they choose. Without an armed citizenry it can happen anywhere.
And notice China's role.
Story from The Mail Online. Link from Last of the Few .
And notice China's role.
Story from The Mail Online. Link from Last of the Few .
04/07: On the Much Lighter Side
Category: Frivolity
Posted by: an okie gardener
A friend sent me these jokes.
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather--who died Peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the Passengers in his car.' --Author Unknown
Advice for the day: If you have a lot of tension and you get a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: 'Take two aspirin' and 'Keep away from children.' --Author Unknown
'Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.' --Drew Carey
'The problem with the designated driver program, it's not a desirable job, but if you ever get sucked into doing it, have fun with it. At the end of the night, Drop them off at the wrong house.' --Jeff Foxworthy
'If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's' life without even considering if there is a man on base.' --Dave Barry
'Relationships are hard. It's like a full time job, and we should treat it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they should give you two weeks' notice, there should be severance pay, and the day before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp.' --Bob Ettinger
'My Mom said she learned how to swim when someone took her out in the lake and threw her off the boat. I said, 'Mom, they weren't trying to teach you how to swim.'' --Paula Poundstone
'A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: 'Duh.' --Conan O'Brien
'Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant?? I'm halfway through my fish burger and I realize, Oh my God....I could be eating a slow learner.' --Lynda Montgomery
'I think that's how Chicago got started. Bunch of People in New York said, 'Gee, I'm enjoying the crime and the poverty, but it just isn't cold enough. Let's go west.'' --Richard Jeni
'If life were fair, Elvis would be alive and all the Impersonators would be dead.' --Johnny Carson
'Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography.' --Paul Rodriguez
'My parents didn't want to move to Florida , but they turned sixty and that's the law.' --Jerry Seinfeld
'Remember in elementary school, you were told that in case of fire you have to line up quietly in a single file line from smallest to tallest. What is the logic in that? What, do tall people burn slower?'
--Warren Hutcherson
'Bigamy is having one wife/husband too many. Monogamy is the same.' --Oscar Wilde
'Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Member of Congress.. But I repeat myself.' --Mark Twain
'Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least they can find Afghanistan ' --A. Whitney Brown
'You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you a look that says, 'My God, you're right! I never would've thought of that!'' --Dave Barry
Do you know why they call it 'PMS'? Because 'Mad Cow Disease' was taken. -- Unknown, (presumed deceased)
'Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.' --W. C. Fields
When I die, I want to die like my grandfather--who died Peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the Passengers in his car.' --Author Unknown
Advice for the day: If you have a lot of tension and you get a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: 'Take two aspirin' and 'Keep away from children.' --Author Unknown
'Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.' --Drew Carey
'The problem with the designated driver program, it's not a desirable job, but if you ever get sucked into doing it, have fun with it. At the end of the night, Drop them off at the wrong house.' --Jeff Foxworthy
'If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's' life without even considering if there is a man on base.' --Dave Barry
'Relationships are hard. It's like a full time job, and we should treat it like one. If your boyfriend or girlfriend wants to leave you, they should give you two weeks' notice, there should be severance pay, and the day before they leave you, they should have to find you a temp.' --Bob Ettinger
'My Mom said she learned how to swim when someone took her out in the lake and threw her off the boat. I said, 'Mom, they weren't trying to teach you how to swim.'' --Paula Poundstone
'A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: 'Duh.' --Conan O'Brien
'Why does Sea World have a seafood restaurant?? I'm halfway through my fish burger and I realize, Oh my God....I could be eating a slow learner.' --Lynda Montgomery
'I think that's how Chicago got started. Bunch of People in New York said, 'Gee, I'm enjoying the crime and the poverty, but it just isn't cold enough. Let's go west.'' --Richard Jeni
'If life were fair, Elvis would be alive and all the Impersonators would be dead.' --Johnny Carson
'Sometimes I think war is God's way of teaching us geography.' --Paul Rodriguez
'My parents didn't want to move to Florida , but they turned sixty and that's the law.' --Jerry Seinfeld
'Remember in elementary school, you were told that in case of fire you have to line up quietly in a single file line from smallest to tallest. What is the logic in that? What, do tall people burn slower?'
--Warren Hutcherson
'Bigamy is having one wife/husband too many. Monogamy is the same.' --Oscar Wilde
'Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Member of Congress.. But I repeat myself.' --Mark Twain
'Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least they can find Afghanistan ' --A. Whitney Brown
'You can say any foolish thing to a dog, and the dog will give you a look that says, 'My God, you're right! I never would've thought of that!'' --Dave Barry
Do you know why they call it 'PMS'? Because 'Mad Cow Disease' was taken. -- Unknown, (presumed deceased)
'Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.' --W. C. Fields
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
03/07: Speculation and Oil Prices
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post, I raised the question as to whether speculation in oil futures were at least partly to blame for high oil prices.
This article affirms that it is.
This article affirms that it is.
