My apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for using a variation of the title of one of his major speeches.
My dream early this morning was about a similar nemesis: those whose only interest is ruling with a false idea of conservatism and a misuse of religion.
The false idea of conservatism is holding on to power, irregardless of how it affects the vast majority of the citizens. This conservatism puts the interests of some large corporations over the interests of large segments of the population. The misuse of religion is to claim to have the truth even as it acts contrary to the teachings of its greatest prophet.
My dream was that teams of journalists met all over the country to unite against the attacks by false conservatives on the journalists integrity and professionalism. Interestingly, many of these journalists being attacked are real conservatives, like George Will and Jennifer Rubin.
What is a real conservative? We can start by naming a few: Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower. All of these have given warning about the order of men that is not to be trusted.
Adam Smith warned about those who live by profit. Edmund Burke warned about the folly of not allowing the colonies to govern themselves. George Washington warned about factions and about foreign entanglements (letting both friends and enemies control our judgment). Abraham Lincoln stated that we had to think anew with new circumstances. Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex.
The best way to counter these false conservatives is to vote in each and every election. These false conservatives do all they can to dissuade people from voting from gerrymandering to false statements about their opponents.
Until such time as real conservatives appear on the scene, I’ll just have to keep voting for Democrats. I don’t support many of the issues of the Democrats, but these issues are not so destructive of our country as the issues proclaimed by false conservatives.
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriotism. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Friday, April 14, 2017
“How to Stand Up to Trump and Win”
Nicholas Kristof gives several ideas about standing up to Trump in a New York Times article, 2017-04-13. See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/opinion/how-to-stand-up-to-trump-and-win.html.
When I forwarded the link to my wife, I added the comment "Don’t just hold a sign. Experts share how to resist and get results.”
When I forwarded the link to my wife, I added the comment "Don’t just hold a sign. Experts share how to resist and get results.”
Monday, January 30, 2017
I live in the best house in the world
Originally published in the Reader Weekly 2004-06-03.
I live in the best house in the world. What? You think your house is better? Your house has a warm basement; your house is bigger; your house is on a lake? Oh well, my house is my house, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best neighborhood in the world. What? You think your neighborhood is better? Your neighborhood has block parties every season; your neighborhood has no thoroughfares running through it; and your neighborhood has a convenience store two blocks from your house? Oh well, my neighborhood is my neighborhood, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best city in the world. What? You think your city is better? Your city has more frequent bus service; your city has fewer potholes; and your city has a warmer climate? John Lescroat, detective fiction writer, thinks that “San Francisco [is] the best city in the world” (The Mercy Rule). Oh well, Duluth is my city, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best state in the world. What? You think your state is better? Your state has mountains or is on the ocean; your state has a lower crime rate and a better education system; and your state has lower taxes? Oh well, Minnesota is my state, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best country in the world. What? You think your country is better? Your country has a better transportation system; your country has free health care for everyone; and your country has less pollution. The Swedish National Anthem exclaims “I will live and die in the North.” Sounds like many Swedes think Sweden is the best country. Or Bedrich Smetana wrote “Ma Vlast (My Country)” about Bohemia, now the core province of the Czech Republic. Oh well, the United States is my country, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
Why is it that so many people have to have the “best” whether it is a car or a country? The Ford-Chevy divide is one of the most ridiculous of the “best” arguments. Why is it that some Ford owners have to put down Chevy owners or vice versa? Can’t they accept that people make choices for a wide variety of reasons, both logical and illogical? I have owned one Chevy (my first car) and five Fords. I can’t tell you why I never bought another Chevy or another GM car or never even considered them. I have rented GM cars many times and they have performed satisfactorily. But to purchase Ford has been my choice and I shouldn’t feel a need to put down Chevy’s or their owners.
Sports teams are another “best” that so many get caught up in. The emotional involvement that some people have can be destructive, both personally and socially. They feel like the world has come to an end if their team loses, and a few of these feel like they have to go on a rampage. I know, I got all excited when the Twins were in the Series in 1987. But I cheered some of the Cardinal players, and I felt sorry for them when they left the field as “losers”. But hey, they won the National League playoffs and for the most part played quite well. The 1987 World Series did not make Minnesota a better state than Missouri.
Countries are the “worst” of the “best” attachments. Not so much that it is wrong to take pride in one’s country, but that the idea that one’s country is “best” can lead to exclusion of other ideas, bad foreign policy, and even war.
One exclusion of other ideas that I’ve always marveled at was that the “best” medical system in the world did not have many computerized patient records until recently, except financial records. When I worked for Univac in Sweden in the early ‘70s, Univac had a special group that worked with hospitals; this group helped European and South African hospitals implement systems that kept track of patients’ medical records. My colleagues in that group joked that the only thing that American hospitals kept track of on computers was how much the patients owed them.
Many think that the U.S. is the bastion of freedom and therefore knows “best” how to export it to other countries. "We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts -- a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy -- by force if necessary.... Liberty cannot be laid down like so much Astroturf." - Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans., quoted by George Will, Duluth News Tribune, May 30, 2004.
Let us remember that Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss was wrong, this is not the best of all possible worlds (or countries or cities or neighborhoods or houses). But let us make the best of what we have and work to make it better.
I live in the best house in the world. What? You think your house is better? Your house has a warm basement; your house is bigger; your house is on a lake? Oh well, my house is my house, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best neighborhood in the world. What? You think your neighborhood is better? Your neighborhood has block parties every season; your neighborhood has no thoroughfares running through it; and your neighborhood has a convenience store two blocks from your house? Oh well, my neighborhood is my neighborhood, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best city in the world. What? You think your city is better? Your city has more frequent bus service; your city has fewer potholes; and your city has a warmer climate? John Lescroat, detective fiction writer, thinks that “San Francisco [is] the best city in the world” (The Mercy Rule). Oh well, Duluth is my city, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best state in the world. What? You think your state is better? Your state has mountains or is on the ocean; your state has a lower crime rate and a better education system; and your state has lower taxes? Oh well, Minnesota is my state, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
I live in the best country in the world. What? You think your country is better? Your country has a better transportation system; your country has free health care for everyone; and your country has less pollution. The Swedish National Anthem exclaims “I will live and die in the North.” Sounds like many Swedes think Sweden is the best country. Or Bedrich Smetana wrote “Ma Vlast (My Country)” about Bohemia, now the core province of the Czech Republic. Oh well, the United States is my country, I like it, and I’ll probably stay in it for many more years.
Why is it that so many people have to have the “best” whether it is a car or a country? The Ford-Chevy divide is one of the most ridiculous of the “best” arguments. Why is it that some Ford owners have to put down Chevy owners or vice versa? Can’t they accept that people make choices for a wide variety of reasons, both logical and illogical? I have owned one Chevy (my first car) and five Fords. I can’t tell you why I never bought another Chevy or another GM car or never even considered them. I have rented GM cars many times and they have performed satisfactorily. But to purchase Ford has been my choice and I shouldn’t feel a need to put down Chevy’s or their owners.
Sports teams are another “best” that so many get caught up in. The emotional involvement that some people have can be destructive, both personally and socially. They feel like the world has come to an end if their team loses, and a few of these feel like they have to go on a rampage. I know, I got all excited when the Twins were in the Series in 1987. But I cheered some of the Cardinal players, and I felt sorry for them when they left the field as “losers”. But hey, they won the National League playoffs and for the most part played quite well. The 1987 World Series did not make Minnesota a better state than Missouri.
Countries are the “worst” of the “best” attachments. Not so much that it is wrong to take pride in one’s country, but that the idea that one’s country is “best” can lead to exclusion of other ideas, bad foreign policy, and even war.
One exclusion of other ideas that I’ve always marveled at was that the “best” medical system in the world did not have many computerized patient records until recently, except financial records. When I worked for Univac in Sweden in the early ‘70s, Univac had a special group that worked with hospitals; this group helped European and South African hospitals implement systems that kept track of patients’ medical records. My colleagues in that group joked that the only thing that American hospitals kept track of on computers was how much the patients owed them.
Many think that the U.S. is the bastion of freedom and therefore knows “best” how to export it to other countries. "We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts -- a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy -- by force if necessary.... Liberty cannot be laid down like so much Astroturf." - Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kans., quoted by George Will, Duluth News Tribune, May 30, 2004.
Let us remember that Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss was wrong, this is not the best of all possible worlds (or countries or cities or neighborhoods or houses). But let us make the best of what we have and work to make it better.
Monday, October 10, 2016
If you don’t vote, you have only yourself to blame
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Reader Weekly
October 28, 2004
The U.S. is still considered a democracy. The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratein for rule. It means the people rule. If you don’t vote, how can you rule?
Democracy has been interpreted as majority rule. But no president has ever been elected by a majority of the adult population. Before the 1860’s few blacks could vote. Before 1920 few women could vote (Wyoming territory being the exception in 1869). Since 1932 the voter turnouts have never been greater than sixty-three percent (1).
That high was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy won with 34,227,096 votes to Richard M. Nixon’s 34,108,546, a difference of 118,550. However, over 40 million people did not vote! More people stayed away than voted for either candidate. (2)
Ronald Reagan supposedly had a landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter. The voter turnout was less than 53 percent. If you consider that less than 28 percent of the eligible voters voted for Ronald Reagan, he did not have a mandate. Almost twice as many people stayed away as voted for Jimmy Carter.
Bill Clinton had five million votes more than Bob Dole in 1992 but the turnout was 55 percent. Fewer voters might have shown up if Ross Perot hadn’t run and won almost 20 million votes, more than half of those that went to Bob Dole. Even then 84 million people stayed away, giving Bill Clinton a plurality of 27 percent, a lower plurality than Ronald Reagan who also had a three-way race.
Even if you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, vote. You don’t have to mark a vote for every office. A lot of people skip voting for judges or conservation district commissioners, why not skip voting for president? Leaving a blank presidential ballot shows you care enough to show up, and you get counted in the vote totals.
Many people blame Ralph Nader for Bush winning in Florida in 2000. Nader got 97,588 votes and the difference between Bush’s and Gore’s totals was 537 votes (3). However, over three million of Florida’s eligible voters did not even show up at the polls (4). That is, more people stayed away than voted for either Bush or Gore.
In no midterm election since 1974 have more than forty percent of the adult population voted (2). Midterm congresses aren’t the best money can buy; they are the result of extreme voter apathy.
You can vote strategically, you can vote tactically, but vote. You can vote because of an overall result you want; say you want one party to dominate in Congress. Therefore you wouldn’t vote for a third party candidate you respect. Or, you can vote because you want a specific person in Congress. Therefore you would vote for a third party candidate or a “major” party candidate in a party different than the party you want to dominate in Congress. Either way, vote
You think Bush should be punished for the mess he made and that Kerry shouldn’t get the blame when he tries to fix it. So vote for Bush, but vote.
You think that Bush has done a marvelous job, then especially in Minnesota you should vote.
You think Bush should not be rewarded for the mess he made and that Kerry can clean it up. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should be president in 2008. If so, Kerry should not be president. But don’t stay away, vote.
You think Hilary Rodham Clinton should not be president in 2008. So vote for Kerry, but vote.
Do you think the make up of the Supreme Court is important?
Do you consider yourself patriotic?
Do you think the country is on the right track?
Do you think the country is on the wrong track?
For any of these reasons, vote.
You can’t get time off from work to vote? Wrong, by law (in Minnesota) your employer must allow you paid time off to vote. It’s your future, vote.
You can’t get a ride to the polls to vote? Call for a ride. (Sorry, I have no current phone numbers for these, but you can probably find some party info on facebook. Look for your party of choice at the municipal or Congressional district level.)
OK Northlanders! Let’s show we care about our country. Let’s have over 90% turnout of the voting age population on November 2, 2004 (as of this re-posting, November 8, 2016).
VOTE!
(1) World Almanac 1998
(2) "National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996", Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm)
(3) “Nader Has Impact on Presidency”, Associated Press, posted at http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/123100/nad_nader.shtml (The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.)
(4) “Who took votes from whom?” http://magree.blogspot.com/2010/12/who-took-votes-from-whom.html
©2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2016 Melvyn D. Magree
Monday, July 04, 2016
What true patriotism is
I’m sitting at my computer listening to all the fireworks, both public at the Bayfront Festival Park and private. We can see some of the Bayfront fireworks if we look out our front upstairs window at the right angle. But is enjoying fireworks patriotism? People all over the world enjoy fireworks.
Is patriotism pledging allegiance to the flag or singing the Star-Spangled Banner. Anybody can do these as a rote exercise. In fact, it seems that the more flags behind a political candidate, the more “patriotic” they are.
Is patriotism “supporting our troops” wherever they are fighting at the behest of our politicians? Many of those wars have led to further wars.
Maybe patriotism is saying that a war is immoral and unwinnable. Remember also that those on the other side think they are being patriotic to their country or cause.
True patriotism is obeying the laws, paying taxes, voting, and speaking your mind about how government is acting. Given these guidelines anybody can be a patriot whether they are Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal”, or none of the above.
Is patriotism pledging allegiance to the flag or singing the Star-Spangled Banner. Anybody can do these as a rote exercise. In fact, it seems that the more flags behind a political candidate, the more “patriotic” they are.
Is patriotism “supporting our troops” wherever they are fighting at the behest of our politicians? Many of those wars have led to further wars.
Maybe patriotism is saying that a war is immoral and unwinnable. Remember also that those on the other side think they are being patriotic to their country or cause.
True patriotism is obeying the laws, paying taxes, voting, and speaking your mind about how government is acting. Given these guidelines anybody can be a patriot whether they are Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal”, or none of the above.
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Pride goeth before the fall
The full King James Version of the title is “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
Is pride always a bad thing?
Pride based on the assumption that you are better than everyone else is certainly not a good thing. This was the pride of kings and nobility who thought they were better than the “rabble” or even the lesser “nobility”. They lived lavishly, depending on the taxes and labor of those “beneath” them. Some of these “haughty spirits” had a great fall.
Do we have a new “nobility” who wouldn’t have their wealth without the labor of many others? Does this “nobility” think they earned every dollar personally, even if those who did the actual work for them lived in dire straits or worked at dangerous jobs without proper safety measures? Their pride does cause destruction; is a fall coming for them?
Pride is a good thing when it is to bolster one’s self-esteem. Think “gay pride” and “black pride”. If this pride makes people think better of themselves, despite the disdain of others, then it is definitely a good thing.
Pride is a good thing when one has created something unique or solved a difficult problem.
These kinds of pride could come under the advice “Don’t hide your light under a bushel”. Of course, one should balance between waving the light in the face of others and getting rewarded with money or fame for one’s effort.
Southern Pride has been much in the news lately. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? But is it a pride based on “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” or is it based on some real accomplishments? If it is still fighting the Civil War, it is not a good thing. If it is, then those who hold this attitude should consider the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell Address”. He warned of the dangers of south against north or east against west.
Have you heard much talk of Northern Pride or Eastern Pride or Western Pride?
National pride is something many feel, but is it really justified? I am an American but I feel neither proud nor ashamed to be an American; I just am an American. This is my country with all of its greatness and all of its faults.
I feel no pride because many Americans fought and died to help defeat Hitler. I was only seven years old at the time. About the only thing I did for the war effort was to fill my war stamp book.
I feel no shame because the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with Imperial policy. Again I was only seven at the time. Interestingly, there are some who are proud of this attack, some of whom are also anti-abortion. How many instant abortions were there at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I feel no pride because I am not a hyphenated American.
My name may be Irish, but I don’t consider myself an Irish-American. In fact, when I visited Ireland, I was called a Yank. The earliest ancestor I can find with the name Magree was in the 1830 census. I know he is an ancestor because his son married in England and gave his father’s first name on his marriage document. For all I know, Vincent Magree could have immigrated from Italy as Vincenzo Magri! The 1830 census did not provide the detail that later censuses did.
Most of my traceable ancestors were from England or Germany, and possibly Poland. But I am not English-American or German-American or Polish-American. I am just American and happy to be so regardless of the achievements or the faults of many other Americans.
Some time ago I wrote a Reader Weekly column entitled “I live in the best house in the world”. I poked fun at myself because I lived in “the best house in the world.” I kept stepping up from best city, best state, and best country. At each step I pointed out that others felt the same about their cities, states, or countries.
Another aspect of pride is “school spirit”. I never did like the term. I went to the schools that I did because they had to let me in or I chose them for my own convenience. Sure, I participated in a couple of varsity sports and I cheered on my friends in the sports they chose. I also donate annually to the two colleges that I went to. Others paid a large portion of my tuition then, and so I support those who study there now. The pile of literature that I get from both includes what the sports teams are doing. I could care less. I do care that the students are learning important and useful stuff.
I find it amazing or amusing that so many get wrapped up in the doings of sports teams, both scholastic and professional. If the locals win, they are overjoyed; if the locals lose, they are dejected or even derisive of coaches or players.
My attitude is “who are the Bulldogs”? Yeah! Yeah! I know, but I have no idea what their schedule is. I just wish the band would play a bit quieter so that I didn’t hear it at my house three-quarters of a mile away.
Finally, when someone asks me about the Vikings, I reply, “Vikings!! Hide the gold! Run for the hills!”
OK! I have no shame! I am done rambling. You can use this page to wrap fish.
Also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-10-08 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/07/6053_pride_goeth_before_the_fall.
Is pride always a bad thing?
Pride based on the assumption that you are better than everyone else is certainly not a good thing. This was the pride of kings and nobility who thought they were better than the “rabble” or even the lesser “nobility”. They lived lavishly, depending on the taxes and labor of those “beneath” them. Some of these “haughty spirits” had a great fall.
Do we have a new “nobility” who wouldn’t have their wealth without the labor of many others? Does this “nobility” think they earned every dollar personally, even if those who did the actual work for them lived in dire straits or worked at dangerous jobs without proper safety measures? Their pride does cause destruction; is a fall coming for them?
Pride is a good thing when it is to bolster one’s self-esteem. Think “gay pride” and “black pride”. If this pride makes people think better of themselves, despite the disdain of others, then it is definitely a good thing.
Pride is a good thing when one has created something unique or solved a difficult problem.
These kinds of pride could come under the advice “Don’t hide your light under a bushel”. Of course, one should balance between waving the light in the face of others and getting rewarded with money or fame for one’s effort.
Southern Pride has been much in the news lately. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? But is it a pride based on “we’re right and everyone else is wrong” or is it based on some real accomplishments? If it is still fighting the Civil War, it is not a good thing. If it is, then those who hold this attitude should consider the warning of George Washington in his “Farewell Address”. He warned of the dangers of south against north or east against west.
Have you heard much talk of Northern Pride or Eastern Pride or Western Pride?
National pride is something many feel, but is it really justified? I am an American but I feel neither proud nor ashamed to be an American; I just am an American. This is my country with all of its greatness and all of its faults.
I feel no pride because many Americans fought and died to help defeat Hitler. I was only seven years old at the time. About the only thing I did for the war effort was to fill my war stamp book.
I feel no shame because the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with Imperial policy. Again I was only seven at the time. Interestingly, there are some who are proud of this attack, some of whom are also anti-abortion. How many instant abortions were there at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I feel no pride because I am not a hyphenated American.
My name may be Irish, but I don’t consider myself an Irish-American. In fact, when I visited Ireland, I was called a Yank. The earliest ancestor I can find with the name Magree was in the 1830 census. I know he is an ancestor because his son married in England and gave his father’s first name on his marriage document. For all I know, Vincent Magree could have immigrated from Italy as Vincenzo Magri! The 1830 census did not provide the detail that later censuses did.
Most of my traceable ancestors were from England or Germany, and possibly Poland. But I am not English-American or German-American or Polish-American. I am just American and happy to be so regardless of the achievements or the faults of many other Americans.
Some time ago I wrote a Reader Weekly column entitled “I live in the best house in the world”. I poked fun at myself because I lived in “the best house in the world.” I kept stepping up from best city, best state, and best country. At each step I pointed out that others felt the same about their cities, states, or countries.
Another aspect of pride is “school spirit”. I never did like the term. I went to the schools that I did because they had to let me in or I chose them for my own convenience. Sure, I participated in a couple of varsity sports and I cheered on my friends in the sports they chose. I also donate annually to the two colleges that I went to. Others paid a large portion of my tuition then, and so I support those who study there now. The pile of literature that I get from both includes what the sports teams are doing. I could care less. I do care that the students are learning important and useful stuff.
I find it amazing or amusing that so many get wrapped up in the doings of sports teams, both scholastic and professional. If the locals win, they are overjoyed; if the locals lose, they are dejected or even derisive of coaches or players.
My attitude is “who are the Bulldogs”? Yeah! Yeah! I know, but I have no idea what their schedule is. I just wish the band would play a bit quieter so that I didn’t hear it at my house three-quarters of a mile away.
Finally, when someone asks me about the Vikings, I reply, “Vikings!! Hide the gold! Run for the hills!”
OK! I have no shame! I am done rambling. You can use this page to wrap fish.
Also appears in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-10-08 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/10/07/6053_pride_goeth_before_the_fall.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Whistleblowers deflate bloated bureaucracies
There are those who think Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning have betrayed trust, and there are those who think they exposed excessive and misguided government actions.
Although an organization depends on all involved following certain rules, what should an honorable person do when he or she feels that the organization is working against the public interest? Will reporting the problem up through the hierarchy eventually solve it? Or will somebody block it?
In more mundane terms, think of all the problems you have had with products and services. If you report them to the company or organization, do you really believe that you will find a champion who will right what you think is wrong? If you think that the reported wrong will be righted, take a peek at support boards of products. There are some problems that have been going on for years and haven't been fixed yet.
For a better look at this problem in far worse situations than inefficient software, see "The Banality of Systemic Evil", Peter Ludlow, New York Times, 2013-09-15.
A bureaucracy develops own set of rules to function "smoothly". Think of the bureaucracy of the Titanic. From the president of White Star Lines to Captain Edward Smith down to deck hands. Each person had a certain set of responsibilities, but almost none of them had all the information they really needed. Were they ready to listen to any warning advice? Was anybody willing to report upward anything that was amiss for a safe voyage?
Did anybody make a big fuss about forward observers not having adequate lights? Did anybody question the command "women and children only" in the partly full lifeboats? Did anyone question the locked doors trapping steerage passengers?
Patriotism is the ultimate "bureaucracy". Not enough of us question why we are using military force. It is considered unpatriotic to question the government in times of war. Amazingly, many "patriots" don't think the government can run a post office or devise regulations to protect the public. But few of them consider that "snafu" is a military term started by the troops. See "Military Slang", Wikipedia.
Some have said true patriots are those who resist supporting military action. I'll leave it to you to decide whether Snowden and Manning are patriots or scoundrels.
Although an organization depends on all involved following certain rules, what should an honorable person do when he or she feels that the organization is working against the public interest? Will reporting the problem up through the hierarchy eventually solve it? Or will somebody block it?
In more mundane terms, think of all the problems you have had with products and services. If you report them to the company or organization, do you really believe that you will find a champion who will right what you think is wrong? If you think that the reported wrong will be righted, take a peek at support boards of products. There are some problems that have been going on for years and haven't been fixed yet.
For a better look at this problem in far worse situations than inefficient software, see "The Banality of Systemic Evil", Peter Ludlow, New York Times, 2013-09-15.
A bureaucracy develops own set of rules to function "smoothly". Think of the bureaucracy of the Titanic. From the president of White Star Lines to Captain Edward Smith down to deck hands. Each person had a certain set of responsibilities, but almost none of them had all the information they really needed. Were they ready to listen to any warning advice? Was anybody willing to report upward anything that was amiss for a safe voyage?
Did anybody make a big fuss about forward observers not having adequate lights? Did anybody question the command "women and children only" in the partly full lifeboats? Did anyone question the locked doors trapping steerage passengers?
Patriotism is the ultimate "bureaucracy". Not enough of us question why we are using military force. It is considered unpatriotic to question the government in times of war. Amazingly, many "patriots" don't think the government can run a post office or devise regulations to protect the public. But few of them consider that "snafu" is a military term started by the troops. See "Military Slang", Wikipedia.
Some have said true patriots are those who resist supporting military action. I'll leave it to you to decide whether Snowden and Manning are patriots or scoundrels.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Citizens or soldiers, which do we want?
Many talk about the National Guard being citizen soldiers. Unfortunately, many consider those who become soldiers to no longer be citizens. That is, once a person becomes a soldier that person is to become an automaton, blindly following orders without dissent.
However, if we are to be a democracy, all must question authority, whether in the military or not.
Our history is full of incidents questioning the decisions of those above in the chain of command, from the Revolution to the Philipines takeover to Bradley Manning. Sometimes it is only because a higher officer has ignored custom; sometimes it is because the generals or the politicians are lying about the purposes or results of a war.
These situations can also show the fallacy of casting issues as conservative or liberal.
See "Revolt in the Ranks: Dissent in the armed forces is a patriotic tradition", Chris Bray, The American Conservative, 2012-06-12, republished in Utne Reader, Nov.-Dec 2012
However, if we are to be a democracy, all must question authority, whether in the military or not.
Our history is full of incidents questioning the decisions of those above in the chain of command, from the Revolution to the Philipines takeover to Bradley Manning. Sometimes it is only because a higher officer has ignored custom; sometimes it is because the generals or the politicians are lying about the purposes or results of a war.
These situations can also show the fallacy of casting issues as conservative or liberal.
See "Revolt in the Ranks: Dissent in the armed forces is a patriotic tradition", Chris Bray, The American Conservative, 2012-06-12, republished in Utne Reader, Nov.-Dec 2012
Friday, April 06, 2012
Exceptionalism or arrogance
Once again we are having politicians claiming American exceptionalism. In other words we are the best country in the world and anybody who denies it is unpatriotic. If you go around town claiming that you are the richest or the best-looking, will you gain many friends? Similarly, if you claim to the world that you are an exceptional nation and have the right to tell other countries how to behave, will you gain many friends, or world peace?
History is filled with countries that thought they ruled the world, or at least the part they knew. They thought they had the answer to everything and the power to bend others to their will. Where is the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Incan Empire, the Russian Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Third Reich, the Soviet Empire, or even the British Empire?
This arrogance is often that of many an Old West gunslinger. He had outdrawn and killed many men, but then one day he was killed – either by a luckier shot or by a sniper. Because of his arrogance, he had made himself a target. If lucky, old age made him a shadow of his former self.
If we are a democracy, how can we claim our President is "the Leader of the Free World"? Who elected him to that position? The minority of the eligible U.S. voters who cast their votes for the President are an even smaller minority of the citizens of the world's democracies. What qualifies an American President to know how to run the rest of the world when, more often than not, his leadership is questioned in his own country?
Two things made the U.S. great – lots of free or stolen land and a bunch of extremely well-read career politicians. The free land is all gone and today's politicians don't even read the bills they vote on.
Don't get me wrong. I like living in the United States. Having moved to Europe, I could have stayed there. But I preferred coming back to the U.S. because it is my country. To me, it doesn't have to be the "best country" or an "exceptional country"; it just is my country. My house doesn't have to be the "best house"; it is my house and I plan to stay in it for some number of years more. See "I Live in the Best House in the World" and "We're exceptional 'cause we say so".
History is filled with countries that thought they ruled the world, or at least the part they knew. They thought they had the answer to everything and the power to bend others to their will. Where is the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Incan Empire, the Russian Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Third Reich, the Soviet Empire, or even the British Empire?
This arrogance is often that of many an Old West gunslinger. He had outdrawn and killed many men, but then one day he was killed – either by a luckier shot or by a sniper. Because of his arrogance, he had made himself a target. If lucky, old age made him a shadow of his former self.
If we are a democracy, how can we claim our President is "the Leader of the Free World"? Who elected him to that position? The minority of the eligible U.S. voters who cast their votes for the President are an even smaller minority of the citizens of the world's democracies. What qualifies an American President to know how to run the rest of the world when, more often than not, his leadership is questioned in his own country?
Two things made the U.S. great – lots of free or stolen land and a bunch of extremely well-read career politicians. The free land is all gone and today's politicians don't even read the bills they vote on.
Don't get me wrong. I like living in the United States. Having moved to Europe, I could have stayed there. But I preferred coming back to the U.S. because it is my country. To me, it doesn't have to be the "best country" or an "exceptional country"; it just is my country. My house doesn't have to be the "best house"; it is my house and I plan to stay in it for some number of years more. See "I Live in the Best House in the World" and "We're exceptional 'cause we say so".
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Patriot Act - have you read it?
Did those who voted for it read it? You can find the original, H.R. 3162, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf. It has 131 pages and 57,796 words. At 800 wpm that would take 72 minutes to read. More likely it would be at 300 wpm or 192 minutes.
I scanned 26 pages of the PDF file in about 30 minutes and gave up. It's very hard to understand because much of it is "strike" and "insert" directions for existing law. One would have to have be constantly referring to those laws to make sense of it. I imagine it would take several days to read it and understand it fully.
Somebody challenged the members of the Senate to read it, and only one Senator took up the challenge. He voted no, a real patriot. Sen. Barack Obama voted yes.
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07
Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that no bill can be longer than the original Constitution (4601 words). Given all the misinterpretations of the Constitution, that still might be too long.
I scanned 26 pages of the PDF file in about 30 minutes and gave up. It's very hard to understand because much of it is "strike" and "insert" directions for existing law. One would have to have be constantly referring to those laws to make sense of it. I imagine it would take several days to read it and understand it fully.
Somebody challenged the members of the Senate to read it, and only one Senator took up the challenge. He voted no, a real patriot. Sen. Barack Obama voted yes.
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07
Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that no bill can be longer than the original Constitution (4601 words). Given all the misinterpretations of the Constitution, that still might be too long.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Pledge of allegiance revisited
I find it interesting to look at Google's reports of this blog and of my website with many of my Reader Weekly articles.
One report is referring websites. That led to "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".
Another report is search words. One set today was "in defense of obama's patriotism a dissent on the pledge". Hm! What did I write that showed up in a Google search of that phrase? Doing my own search with that phrase, I found that one of my blog entries turned up fourth out of about 169,000 results!!! The entry is "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance" from February 2008.
My only reference to the phrase is "Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2177838/fr/rss/". My tags didn't include that specific phrase but I guess I used enough other relevant tags to get a good position.
I did reread Rosenbaum's article, and I still agree with him. It makes me think that my renaming Republicans as Roboticans was very appropriate. Hm! I typed that new name as Roboticons; that might be appropriate too.
And since I'm running wild at the keyboard, I'll be an equal opportunity name changer. Given that so many Democrats also depend on big buck, corporate donors, shouldn't they be called Plutocrats?
One report is referring websites. That led to "Extremism continues on the Unfair campaign".
Another report is search words. One set today was "in defense of obama's patriotism a dissent on the pledge". Hm! What did I write that showed up in a Google search of that phrase? Doing my own search with that phrase, I found that one of my blog entries turned up fourth out of about 169,000 results!!! The entry is "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance" from February 2008.
My only reference to the phrase is "Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007 http://www.slate.com/id/2177838/fr/rss/". My tags didn't include that specific phrase but I guess I used enough other relevant tags to get a good position.
I did reread Rosenbaum's article, and I still agree with him. It makes me think that my renaming Republicans as Roboticans was very appropriate. Hm! I typed that new name as Roboticons; that might be appropriate too.
And since I'm running wild at the keyboard, I'll be an equal opportunity name changer. Given that so many Democrats also depend on big buck, corporate donors, shouldn't they be called Plutocrats?
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Who's taking whose freedoms away?
Many candidates and commentators complain bitterly that the "government" is taking our freedoms away. These same people also want a large military to "protect our freedoms". However, they never seem to recognize that their own positions threaten our freedoms.
They also think that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain the various freedoms of speech, assembly, and so on. No, it was fought for the freedom to govern ourselves rather than being governed by a country three thousand miles away.
Now, these same candidates and commentators want to take the freedom to govern ourselves away, and they often consider themselves patriotic because they support a strong military, pledge allegiance to the flag (including "under God"), and wear flag pins. How are they taking away freedom to govern ourselves? By raising the false specter of "voter fraud" and hoping to keep away from the polls people who might not vote for them.
I've written about many of them being hypocrites in religion; they are hitting a double by being hypocrites in patriotism.
Protect your freedom: VOTE!
They also think that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain the various freedoms of speech, assembly, and so on. No, it was fought for the freedom to govern ourselves rather than being governed by a country three thousand miles away.
Now, these same candidates and commentators want to take the freedom to govern ourselves away, and they often consider themselves patriotic because they support a strong military, pledge allegiance to the flag (including "under God"), and wear flag pins. How are they taking away freedom to govern ourselves? By raising the false specter of "voter fraud" and hoping to keep away from the polls people who might not vote for them.
I've written about many of them being hypocrites in religion; they are hitting a double by being hypocrites in patriotism.
Protect your freedom: VOTE!
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Founding optimists
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07, on the age restrictions in the Constitution for the House of Representatives and for the Senate
Oh, how I wish that Jay had not deceived himself.
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07, on the age restrictions in the Constitution for the House of Representatives and for the Senate
Oh, how I wish that Jay had not deceived himself.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Has this prediction become true?
"In a way, the world-view of the [Manipulators] imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding, they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."
Who are the manipulators? In George Orwell's "1984" it is the Party. Who would it be in our world: corporations, the military-industrial complex, the national security establishment, the Tea Party, …?
Could the attack on public education be an attempt to ensure that people are incapable of understanding the manipulations? Could the attack on true health care be an obfuscation to cloud understanding. Could the use (or misuse) of words like patriotism, free market, tax burden, job creation, and on and on be used as "flagrant violations of reality"?
Could all this manipulation be a means to confuse people so that they became "not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening" and therefore not even show up to vote?
Who are the manipulators? In George Orwell's "1984" it is the Party. Who would it be in our world: corporations, the military-industrial complex, the national security establishment, the Tea Party, …?
Could the attack on public education be an attempt to ensure that people are incapable of understanding the manipulations? Could the attack on true health care be an obfuscation to cloud understanding. Could the use (or misuse) of words like patriotism, free market, tax burden, job creation, and on and on be used as "flagrant violations of reality"?
Could all this manipulation be a means to confuse people so that they became "not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening" and therefore not even show up to vote?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
True patriots celebrate today more than any other day
Did you know today is Constitution Day? On this day 222 years ago, 12 state delegations approved the Constitution of the United States.
Unfortunately more people give respect to the flag than the Constitution. Presidents of both parties have given speeches justifying their usurpation of power against a backdrop of flags.
For one site respecting the Constitution, see http://www.constitutionday.cc/.
See also http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/funZone/files/Recent_Visitors.pdf for a list of countries from which people have visited this site.
Unfortunately more people give respect to the flag than the Constitution. Presidents of both parties have given speeches justifying their usurpation of power against a backdrop of flags.
For one site respecting the Constitution, see http://www.constitutionday.cc/.
See also http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/funZone/files/Recent_Visitors.pdf for a list of countries from which people have visited this site.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Why does being an American have to be special?
The newspapers are filled with testimonials on why people are proud to be American. They give many reasons including a list of freedoms. But underlying many of these is a notion that being an American is preferable to being anything else. Nowhere else in the world could be as good as living in America.
I have lived in and visited other countries and people there are quite happy to stay there. Sure it may be nice to visit or live in America, but they would just as soon live in their native land. In fact, I have many friends who lived in the U.S. for several years and chose to return to their home countries.
Being proud of one's country is a good thing, but it becomes a bad thing when one thinks one's country is superior to anything else.
I find this very strange. After all, my house is not necessarily the best house, but it is my house. My city is not necessarily the best city, but it is my city. My state is not necessarily the best state, but it is my state. Why do we have to have the best country, not just our country. See "I live in the best house in the world".
As the song says, "This is my home, the country where my heart is; here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine". Hymn 159, "This is My Song", Singing the Living Tradition, The Unitarian Universalist Association
I have lived in and visited other countries and people there are quite happy to stay there. Sure it may be nice to visit or live in America, but they would just as soon live in their native land. In fact, I have many friends who lived in the U.S. for several years and chose to return to their home countries.
Being proud of one's country is a good thing, but it becomes a bad thing when one thinks one's country is superior to anything else.
I find this very strange. After all, my house is not necessarily the best house, but it is my house. My city is not necessarily the best city, but it is my city. My state is not necessarily the best state, but it is my state. Why do we have to have the best country, not just our country. See "I live in the best house in the world".
As the song says, "This is my home, the country where my heart is; here are my hopes, my dreams, my holy shrine". Hymn 159, "This is My Song", Singing the Living Tradition, The Unitarian Universalist Association
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The most egregious political correctness
Many of us laugh at the attempts at political or patriotic correctness. One must not disparage any ethnic group, religious group, women, people with illnesses, and on and on through a laundry list of "marginalized" groups. One must not insult the flag or question a war and must show certain outward signs of "patriotism".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
These misdirected efforts pale in comparison with the demands of certain governments and segments of several religions. Government after government shuts a newspaper down for insulting the nation of the government, often because they dared to print the truth. Many individuals want papers shut down or reporters and editors killed because the paper has "insulted" their religion with blasphemy. In both cases, such calls demonstrate weakness rather than strength.
In the case of "blasphemy", cannot an omniscient, omnipotent God protect himself? He sort of did in 1 Kings 18. After nothing happened to the sacrifice to Baal by the priests of Baal, God sent fire onto Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice and it was consumed. Interestingly, God did not send fire onto the priests of Baal; Elijah cut their throats.
In the case of "insults" of government, U.S. history is filled with some really mean-spirited campaign blasts. In 1796, John Adams "called his opponent Thomas Jefferson cowardly, weak and a person who did not share Americans' values." ("Character Attacks Heat Up Presidential Campaign", America.gov, 2007-12-04.
In 1828, Andrew Jackson's supporters called John Quincy Adams a "pimp". Adams' supporters retorted that Jackson's wife was a "prostitute". They also called Jackson a "jackass" and used a picture of a donkey. That last backfired because Jackson liked it and adopted the donkey as his party's "mascot". (ibid.)
And so it continues today, "fathering a black baby", "taking bribes", "not being heroic enough", and on and on. Somehow, although we wonder that our democracy will survive, it still does.
See also "Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance".
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Pledge of Allegiance or Sledge of Allegiance
Although I often dutifully recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I do so reluctantly and hypocritically. I do it more because of social conformity than any real attachment to the flag. To me, a pledge of allegiance, to a flag or a country, is un-American. We are a country founded on dissent; we should not have a legally or socially enforced act of conformity that serves no other purpose than to make some people feel good. Those who recite the pledge should remember that "liberty and justice for all" should include those who take the liberty of not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
As a measure of how emotional this can get, consider the campaign smearing Barack Obama for supposedly not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually, it was during the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner"; I know hardly anybody that puts his or her hand over heart during the singing of the national anthem.
To me, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the Pledge of Allegiance are more worshiping an icon than respecting the idea of a democratic republic. It became even more a public worship when "under God" was added in 1954. I find this ironic in that the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. However, if a candidate doesn't dutifully recite the whole Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God", he or she is considered unpatriotic and unsuited for public office.
What makes matters worse is that some office holders wear their flag pins, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, call unpatriotic those who do not, and then trash the Constitution. There is no requirement of a flag or a pledge of allegiance to the flag or government. There is simply the requirement that all government officials down to the state level "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI). The President is required more stringently to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" (Article II).
For more on the Pledge of Allegiance and dissent, search on "pledge of allegiance" and "Jehovah's witness". Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007.
As a measure of how emotional this can get, consider the campaign smearing Barack Obama for supposedly not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually, it was during the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner"; I know hardly anybody that puts his or her hand over heart during the singing of the national anthem.
To me, "The Star Spangled Banner" and the Pledge of Allegiance are more worshiping an icon than respecting the idea of a democratic republic. It became even more a public worship when "under God" was added in 1954. I find this ironic in that the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office. However, if a candidate doesn't dutifully recite the whole Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God", he or she is considered unpatriotic and unsuited for public office.
What makes matters worse is that some office holders wear their flag pins, recite the Pledge of Allegiance, call unpatriotic those who do not, and then trash the Constitution. There is no requirement of a flag or a pledge of allegiance to the flag or government. There is simply the requirement that all government officials down to the state level "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI). The President is required more stringently to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" (Article II).
For more on the Pledge of Allegiance and dissent, search on "pledge of allegiance" and "Jehovah's witness". Among the more interesting hits, you'll find "In Defense of Obama's Patriotism, A dissent on the pledge", Ron Rosenbaum, Slate, Nov. 12, 2007.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Constitution Day
Did you know today is Constitution Day? I didn't and from what I gather most people don't either. Supposedly this situation will change because federal law now requires schools to provide educational programming on the history of the Constitution on the school day closest to September 17.
I think it's a pity that we don't elevate the honoring of the Constitution to the level of many of the other holidays that venerate "patriotism". The Constitution is more important to our freedom than any war or the flag. It gives the legal underpinning for our government and our rights. Time and time again, the greatest threats to these have been apathy, mob rule, and our own government.
I think it's a pity that we don't elevate the honoring of the Constitution to the level of many of the other holidays that venerate "patriotism". The Constitution is more important to our freedom than any war or the flag. It gives the legal underpinning for our government and our rights. Time and time again, the greatest threats to these have been apathy, mob rule, and our own government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)