"Why I'm Not Patriotic"
Is patriotism idolatry? Is patriotism the narcissism of petty differences"?
Matthew Rothschild in his article, "Why I'm not Patriotic", comments on his reasons for being anti-patriotic.
Here's a small piece to ponder:
Its July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out.
Spare me the puerile parades.
Dont play that martial music, white boy.
And dont befoul natures sky with your F-16s.
You see, I dont believe in patriotism.
Its not that Im anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic.
Love of country isnt natural. Its not something youre born with. Its an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game.
Yet most people accept it without inspection.
Why?
For when you stop to think about it, patriotism (especially in its malignant morph, nationalism) has done more to stack the corpses millions high in the last 300 years than any other factor, including the prodigious slayer, religion.
It made me wonder: Can patriotism go too far? Is the U.S. too patriotic? Not patriotic enough? What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism?
Is patriotism truly the cause of all the wars and deaths he mentions?
What does it mean to display the American flag? Why do people do so? Does it weed out the patriotic from unpatriotic? Does it serve as a celebration of our nation and freedom?
As you can see, I have a lot of questions- and very few answers. However, I would love to hear your comments. If you show your patriotism- why? how?
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx070208
Posted by: woadoubt on July 02, 2008 at 6:31 PM | Comments (5) | Permalink
Strategy
I am going to go out on a limb and quote my husband. He has said, from the very beginning, that a sign of a good President is a well-run campaign. I think I've said this before. From the beginning the Obama team has done an amazing job. This isn't a partisan observation- I don't believe. He beat Hillary, amassed lots of money, and has been aggressive. He has the right people doing the right jobs. If you believe he has been weak or has made mistakes, how so?
The latest Politico news is that McCain insiders do not think he is doing a good job. But, before that news is out of the critic's mouths too long they recover by saying that they think he (McCain) has enough time to make a recovery.
"Four months have passed since John McCain effectively captured the party nomination, and the insiders are getting restless. Top GOP officials, frustrated by what they view as inconsistent messaging, sluggish fundraising and an organization that is too slow to take shape, are growing increasingly uneasy about the direction of the McCain presidential campaign.
While the practice of second-guessing presidential campaign decisions is a quadrennial routine, interviews with 16 Republican strategists and state party chairmen few of whom would agree to talk on the record reveal a striking level of discord and mounting criticism about the McCain operation. "
What do you think? Is the McCain machine well-oiled? Is it doing a good job of getting his message out to the population? Anyone willing to make an early prediction on McCain's chances of winning the election?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11474.html
Posted by: woadoubt on July 02, 2008 at 10:50 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
Guns, Freedom, and You
Today's joint blog:
Michael Reagan's column today titled, "Liberty Wins a Big One" sounded like a page straight from a conservative handbook. For most of my voting years I've been a conservative Republican and so I don't make that statement to rile anyone up.
I've been looking to better understand the Supreme Court's decision on gun ownership. Reagan's article didn't provide a lot of information. I did learn his definition of a liberal,
"The liberals who want to ban gun ownership are the same liberals whod like to drive family-sized automobiles off the nations streets and highways, prohibit the use of fossil fuels because they allegedly harm the environment and contribute to non-existent global warming -- a fantasy they are inflicting on the American people -- and demonizing carbon dioxide, a natural gas without which life on earth cannot survive."
However, I am still wondering about the pros and cons of gun ownership. From what I've been able to gather, if people have freedom to own guns they have the freedom to hunt and to defend themselves from other people who own guns.
I've been told that banning guns doesn't remove guns from the hands of criminals so there isn't a reason to ban guns.
Reagan give a final warning, in case people get too excited about this 'ruling for freedom' (he happens to tie it in with the upcoming election):
"The Supreme Court ruling has been greeted by the American people as a welcome sign that many of their rights long threatened by out-of-control judges who make or misinterpret laws, rather than enforcing them, are now at last being safeguarded by the High Court.
Thats a dangerous misconception. The new decision was a 5-4 ruling. That tiny majority, often reversed in other rulings that defy the meaning of the Constitution, will vanish if the liberals manage to elect Barack Obama and give his party sufficient control of Congress to guarantee that future Court vacancies will be filled with activist liberal justices who will turn the Constitution upside down.
We won a big one this time but the battle is far from won."
What have I missed? If you are for or against the Supreme Court's ruling, what seems to be the most significant reason for you?
Reagan assumes that electing Barack Obama would bring "activits liberal justices". Is it so predictable? I guess I have not become cynical enough, yet, in my political views.
Can't a conservative be against guns? I wonder how the labels liberal=against guns, conservative = for freedom got started way back when?
I have not been opinionated about this topic or involved with all the back and forth arguements. I value your opinions and would love to hear your thoughts on this one.
Here's the link:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27225#continueA
Posted by: woadoubt on June 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM | Comments (5) | Permalink
Wisdom from the "ancients"
Here is my blog from sctimes.com......I hope you enjoy!!
My "comic" font is making no joke over two health stories from the Newswire today.
Story #1:"As Americans' collective waistline has continued to expand, so has the prevalence of obesity-related cancer.
According to the June issue of Mayo Clinic Health Letter, an estimated 14 percent of cancer deaths in older men and 20 percent in older women can be attributed to excess body fat. It's not fully understood why excess body fat increases the risk of cancer."
Story #2:
"Diabetes now affects nearly 24 million people in the United States, an increase of more than 3 million in approximately two years, according to new 2007 prevalence data estimates released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This means that nearly 8 percent of the U.S. population has diabetes.
In addition to the 24 million with diabetes, another 57 million people are estimated to have pre-diabetes, a condition that puts people at increased risk for diabetes. Among people with diabetes, those who do not know they have the disease decreased from 30 percent to 25 percent over a two-year period."
I can't help but think of "Siggy's" (short of Sigmund Freud) speech from "What About Bob?" when Bob asks him why he wears black and he responds that it is because "we are all going to die".
Do you ever feel a real sense of fatalism..this same sentiment "We are all going to die"? I do. I especially do after reading health stories like the two above.
Oh, I understand that there is a witch's brew: a little prevention, a sprinkle of genetic material and all stirred together with a strong or weak immune system. (among other ingredients)
My grandmother, who has lived a full and good life, takes very few medications. I think she takes a small dose of blood pressure medication. She swears by supplements and buys her calcium, potassium, etc. I'd like to think that I have her genes for longevity, but who knows? We just can't count on it.
On the other hand, what the stories don't point out is the exact amount of prevention that we CAN do. We can be encouraged that the problems with cancer caused by obesity and Diabetes (type 2) can be helped and even prevented by healthy lifestyles. Limit calories, eat antioxidant-rich foods, exercise....we ALL know the routine.
I wrote about obesity in a TWG article a few months ago. I feel sorry for all those that struggle with obesity. I have to work to keep my weight off. It is a major daily struggle. However, as I considered the plight of the obese I began to succumb to "new" messages such as this: "We need to spend more money on educating the obese." "We need to fund such and such obesity program". I said to myself, "Myself, maybe education is truly the key to preventing obesity- and I've been wrong for minimizing it."
Well, I've had a good read. My husband and I started to collect old Life magazines and old Ladies Home Journal magazines- ones from the '50's. Wouldn't you know? Back then they knew how to be healthy? They gave health advice about eating too much?
I looked at my husband and said, "You mean to tell me that we've been giving all this health "education" for over 50 years and people still don't get it?" It was an eye opener. (I can't wait to tell you about the public school article I found in a 50's magazine!!!! Oh, the woes of the horrible public school system in the 1950's!!!!!! It was going to the dogs even then.)
Those old magazines added a little perspective. I think this is the expertise that the older generation gives us younger folk. I'm not saying we don't educate the public. Nor do I advocate sitting around pointing fingers.
I'll try a little prevention, add a little dose of reality "We are all going to die", and hope that a little of grandma's genetic material and wisdom finds its way to me.
Posted by: woadoubt on June 24, 2008 at 7:31 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink
Plenty on Pawlenty?
The case is now being made for Pawlenty for McCain's VP choice. I'm fairly neutral on the subject. I would like to gather some information and form an opinion.
The Washington Post's political blog "The Fix" is addressing this issue.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/the_case_for_tim_pawlenty.html
The New Republic's Noam Scheiber has "The Slam-Dunk Case For Pawlenty" here:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/06/18/the-slam-dunk-case-for-pawlenty.aspx
What is your case for or against Pawlenty? Have you been happy with his performance as Governor? Would Pawlenty be a good addition to the ticket?
Here is a link to my sctimes.com blog and the feedback on this same issue:
Posted by: woadoubt on June 19, 2008 at 9:10 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
Clean your plate..
Here is my blog entry for today from sctimes.com. I like to have different postings, but this busy month has slowed me down. If you have any contrary thoughts, articles, or websites I would love to hear about them!!
---------------
I grew up hearing about overpopulation. Alongside this theme I remember seeing visions of starving African children. It was pretty shocking as a child. The only help I could offer as a child was to clean my plate, take only the food I could eat, and sponsor a child with my spare change.
Has anything changed? Are we to fear overpopulation?
I've heard moral arguments made for birth control based on the overpopulation theory.
Jeff Jacoby has a though-provoking article about this topic. It is Part 1 and is titled, "The Coming Population Bust". http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/18/the_coming_population_bust/
He comments:
"Like other prejudices, the belief that more humanity means more misery resists compelling evidence to the contrary. In the past two centuries, the number of people living on earth has nearly septupled, climbing from 980 million to 6.5 billion. And yet human beings today are on the whole healthier, wealthier, longer-lived, better-fed, and better-educated than ever before....
By mid-century, according to one UN estimate, there will be 248 million fewer children than there are now. To a culture that has been endlessly hectored about the dangers of overpopulation, that might sound like welcome news. It isn't. No society gains when it loses its most precious resource, and no resource is more valuable than the human mind. The coming demographic winter will chill us all."
You mean to tell me that we are heading for a depopulation problem rather than overpopulation?
Why are fewer babies being born? What might be some reasons for depopulation? Any ideas?
Posted by: woadoubt on June 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM | Comments (6) | Permalink
Sentimental
I am copying a section from my St. Cloud Times blog. It is sentimental, but not in the way you would expect on this Father's Day. Rather than focus just on fathers, I feel a more broad thankfulness for certain men in my life. It has been popular for women to "showcase" their strength and their independence, but without particular men in my life I would NOT be the person I am today.
I am most thankful for my husband. He is one very unique and wonderful person. It is our anniversary today- our 17th. He has changed me and challenged me. I want to express my appreciation for his patience and understanding. I was a real piece of work when we got married. I have become a better person because of his efforts. I have regret over my failings as a wife, but am thankful that he has chosen to stick by me. I have a great love and respect for him. It is a privilege to be married to such a man.
Here is a clip from my other blog:
I was sitting in a Hardees in Hinckley when I saw in the paper that he (Tim Russert) had died on Friday. I immediately got tears in my eyes and felt like I would miss his presence on Meet The Press. While I often felt his line of questioning was repetitious, I still tuned in and wanted to see his guests squirm and try to talk their way out of a tough situation. He got some of the best guests, but my favorite was always Doris Kearns Goodwin.
My husband asked me if I had any friends who would even know Tim Russert or feel anything over his death. It didn't take long for me to say, "No". I lament the fact that my women friends are so disinterested in politics. I admire their devotion to their children and their own interests, but feel that for many they lack a perspective that is outside of themselves. I know there are women out there who are very interested in politics. I have just not had the privilege to connect with them. By using the word "interested" I don't refer to activism. I refer to a genuine love of news and current events and the desire to take current events and compare and contrast them with history.
Are you a woman who can't go without reading the paper or hearing the news? Are you a woman who enjoys documentaries, biographies, and nonfiction? Do you ever save articles or clip stories? Would you choose to watch Truman on PBS rather than Sex and the City? Would you rather meet to discuss politics than attend one more play group? (if you admit to such you are no less a woman, either!!!)
As I write this, my husband and son are chipping golf balls in the yard. It is sunny and breezy. It is Father's Day. It is also our 17th anniversary. I am reminded to appreciate every day and every event (good or bad), I am challenged to change- to improve the qualities that need it, to admit wrong, to desire the best for others, and to never assume anything. I want to ask myself often: How can I become a better person?
There are those people who challenge you to do that- to become a better person. I am thankful for those people today.
Posted by: woadoubt on June 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM | Comments (4) | Permalink
Well said.
I believe my mind has been read. It is a wonderful feeling when you read words that completely summarize your own thoughts (way better than you could ever communicate yourself)!!
David Brooks has a wonderful column in the NY Times today that is worth reading. It is titled, "The Great Seduction". Let me offer a couple quotes to get you thinking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"The people who created this country built a moral structure around money. The Puritan legacy inhibited luxury and self-indulgence. Benjamin Franklin spread a practical gospel that emphasized hard work, temperance and frugality. Millions of parents, preachers, newspaper editors and teachers expounded the message. The result was quite remarkable.
The United States has been an affluent nation since its founding. But the country was, by and large, not corrupted by wealth. For centuries, it remained industrious, ambitious and frugal.
Over the past 30 years, much of that has been shredded..."
And..
"The deterioration of financial mores has meant two things. First, its meant an explosion of debt that inhibits social mobility and ruins lives. Between 1989 and 2001, credit-card debt nearly tripled, soaring from $238 billion to $692 billion. By last year, it was up to $937 billion, the report said.
Second, the transformation has led to a stark financial polarization. On the one hand, there is what the report calls the investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents."
Do you agree with Brooks' opening statement, "The people who created this country built a moral structure around money."?
Has this moral structure been lost? It is interesting to me that even among the most moral of people (those with strict Christian values) there can be a loss of "moral structure around money". I know of Christians who have lost their way financially. Just because a person is moral, in general, does that make them more wise with their finances?
What does Brooks mean, exactly?
Posted by: woadoubt on June 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM | Comments (2) | Permalink
One great VP choice!
As I blogged on my St. Cloud Times site, I would be remiss if I didn't put my plug in for Obama's VP choice. I have been a fan of Joe Biden for some time and finally have seen his name pop up on Real Clear Politics. Here is the link to the article:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/biden_could_help_obama_win_on.html
Biden would bring experience (along with age), common sense, straight talk, and respect to the ticket.
E.J. Dionne writes,
"...the central reason to pick Biden is the message the choice would send about Obama's readiness to contest national security issues and his understanding that fixing American foreign policy must be one of the next president's highest priorities.
Biden has been critical of Bush's approach to Iraq and the world for the right reasons, and from the beginning. In the fall of 2002, he tried, with Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar, to pass a more modest war resolution that put additional constraints on Bush. Then-House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt short-circuited the effort by cutting a deal with the president. Even before the war began, Biden was warning of the costs of a lengthy occupation and predicting a decade-long intervention.
He is also frank about his misunderstanding of what Bush would do. At one point, he thought Bush was reluctant to start a war.
"I vastly underestimated the total incompetence of this crew," he says. "I could not fathom that they would do what they did under the circumstances they did it."
To restore its strength and influence, the United States needs to return to the realistic internationalism of FDR, Truman and, yes, the first President Bush. Whether or not Obama picks Biden, he should listen to what Biden is saying. Obama can't sidestep the foreign policy debate. He has to win it."
He is a great choice..can you think of anyone better?
Posted by: woadoubt on June 10, 2008 at 1:56 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink
On the flip side..
I have to laugh! I go to my favorite site and find this story link:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/6/9/why-the-economy-is-better-than-you-think.html
The title is "Why the Economy Is Better Than You Think". It is on the US News and World Report website. Opinions, opinions..it seems everyone has them! So, I wonder which story is more accurate- my previous post from Daniel Gross (full of gloom) or this story by Pethokoukis?
How do you feel? Are generally more optimistic about our economy or pessimistic?
Posted by: woadoubt on June 09, 2008 at 3:17 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink
