“I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

“I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

I wonder how many people are familiar with this quotation. Continue reading “Random Observations on the Fourth”

Mrs. L of Mrs. Linklater’s Guide to the Universe has just returned victorious from the battlefield against a major bank. The dispute wasn’t over some subtle miscalculation or erroneous service charge that might otherwise have gone unnoticed by the general public.

It was about a shredded American flag that appeared to be hanging on by a single grommit. She posted photos of the tattered stars and stripes on her blog, here.

The amazing thing, isn’t that she had to make multiple phone calls and even threaten to contact the corporate headquarters for Chase. The amazing thing, isn’t that it took almost ten days from the day she first posted about her calls to the date she says the new flag appeared.

The amazing thing to me is that it took a customer — or even a non-customer — to tell them to take two seconds to look up at what they were flying over their branch. No one should have had to tell them that their flag had become a rag. No one should have had to point out how disrespectful it is to fly a flag in that condition. No one should have had to make multiple phone calls to encourage them to replace their old flag with a new one. They should have noticed it themselves, long before it ever reached the condition pictured on her blog.

Is there anyone reading this who wouldn’t have noticed how bad that flag looked?

Congratulations, Mrs. L. I’m glad you were on the case.

The latest “Patrick’s Place Poll” gave you the choice of choosing the greatest of the last ten U.S. Presidents.

There was almost a dead tie for first place, which is pretty much what I expected. Ronald Reagan, our 40th president, came in first with the narrowest-possible victory, earning 41% of the vote. Our 42nd president, Bill Clinton, had 39% of the vote.

I was sure that there would be a duel between these two, but I honestly expected Clinton to be the one to edge out ahead.

I would have expected John F. Kennedy to have pulled in more than 10% of the vote, but the biggest surprise was that the president considered to be one of the most moral, upstanding men ever to hold that office happened to tie with the president generally considered to be one of the most corrupt: Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon each got 5%, placing them both at last place.

It is worth noting, though it is not a surprise given his approval rating, that the current president didn’t receive a single vote in this particular poll.

I wonder what type of “mandate” that voting pattern might represent.

CBS correspondent Lara Logan defended the media’s coverage of the War on Iraq during an appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources. She took issue with accusations that the media only focuses on the bad in Iraq, choosing to ignore any positive news coming from the country:

“Who says things aren’t falling apart in Iraq? I mean, what you didn’t see on your screens this week was all the unidentified bodies that have been turning up, all the allegations here of militias that are really controlling the security forces.”

She says that journalists can no longer travel around the country without military escort and armed security guards, a fact also mentioned by NBC’s Richard Engel, who has covered the situation there since before the war began, in a recent “Reporter’s Notebook” segment on that network’s evening news.

Lara adds:

“When journalists are free to move around this country, then they will be free to report on everything that’s going on. But as long as you’re a prisoner of the terrible security situation here, then that’s going to be reflected in your coverage.”

Host Howard Kurtz then asks what seems like the question with the most obvious answer in the world: “So what you’re saying is that what we see on the CBS Evening News or other networks actually is only a snapshot, is only perhaps scratching the surface of the kinds of violence and difficulties that you are witnessing day after day because you can only get so much of this on the air?” As I just said the other day, in Iraq alone, there are roughly 26 million people. To fit news about every person in that country — not to mention the rest of the world — within a network’s evening news time of about 22 minutes or so, you’d have to tell more than a million stories a minute.

Besides the obvious answer to Kurtz’s question, “Absolutely,” Logan elaborates:

“You don’t think that I haven’t been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let’s see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? ‘Oh, sorry, we can’t take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they’re going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.’”‘Oh, sorry, we can’t show this reconstruction project because then that’s going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.’

“I mean, security dominates every single thing that happens in this country. Reconstruction funds have been diverted to cover away from reconstruction to — they’ve been diverted to security.

“Soldiers, their lives are occupied most of the time with security issues. Iraqi civilians’ lives are taken up most of the time with security issues.

“So how it is that security issues should not then dominate the media coverage coming out of here?”

Nearly three years after George Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and, while standing in front of a banner that read, “Mission Accomplished,” told the Lincoln’s crew that major combat operations in Iraq have ended, security is still a significant danger.

Bush did say in the same speech that there would still be difficult days ahead. Did anyone in his entourage think the region would still be so volatile at this late date? If they did, they didn’t make that clear. If they didn’t, one has to wonder how they couldn’t have had some idea of the determination of resistance forces there.

These aren’t unpatriotic questions, nor are they unreasonable.

I’ve been reminded recently of the frustration that many who have opposed this war from its beginning feel. Part of their anger comes from the loss of life and the sheer cost of the war itself. Part of the anger comes from their vilification at the hand of over-zealous war supporters who are hellbent at convincing the rest of the country that those who oppose the war are somehow disloyal to their country.

It goes back to the question of supporting the troops. Is it possible to wish for their success — or at least their safety — while still opposing the action in which they are involved? I have argued that the answer is yes. And that’s only logical: most of the people who oppose the war would list the loss of life as one of their top reasons for feeling the way they do. So who would hate the loss of life and hope for the failure of our troops, when, in that volatile situation, their failure would most likely mean their deaths? It doesn’t add up.

I have no doubt that our soldiers are helping to accomplish some positive changes in the country. I hope they’re able to accomplish much more and that they are able to do so without one more loss. There are Iraqis who are glad we’re there and value our assistance in giving them more freedom than they’ve ever dreamed of having in the past.

The problem is, there are Iraqis who aren’t glad we’re there. They want us out. And they don’t mind killing themselves to take us with them.

It is unrealistic to expect the media to focus on the “good” when so much danger still exists. No matter how many communities are rebuilt, no matter how much more freedom exists for the people, if the security situation is so unstable that reporters can’t reach the “good” or are discouraged from showing it over fears for the safety of those who are involved, that is the story!

What does it mean to support the troops?

Yes, this topic again.

Does supporting the troops mean that you automatically support every mission they do, every act they take, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Or does it mean something as simple as being grateful for the work they’ve done in the name of this country, or praying that not another single one of them dies in Iraq? Does one, to support the troops, have to start a drive in their neighborhood to send troops goods from home, or send letters to those soldiers who happen to want penpals to remind them that they’re being thought about?

The answer is simple: it depends on the person.

Does one have to be a Republican to care about the troops? Do Democrats hope our soldiers will be lost just to make their political points?

Say it with me, everyone: Of course not!

I was taking my morning blogjog and came upon this post from Neil over at the Blue Voice. The first line stopped me cold:

“The very people who sent Troops to Iraq for nothing — and in insufficient number and with inadequate equipment — these very same people slap a sticker on their bumper and claim to ’support the Troops.’”

Neil goes on to add:

“They have their own version of the big lie. They beat their chests and proclaim themselves to be good patriots because they support sending Troops to Iraq for Bush, whatever his real reasons might be for doing so. They claim to support the Troops — but — they really do not care.”

Whatever his real reasons might be for sending the troops into Iraq, the notion of supporting the troops doesn’t require the blind following of the president who sent them there. Ironically, Neil, in arguing that the real support of troops comes in the form of questioning the decisions that led to war — and thereby, criticism of the administration — proves this very point.

So if it is unfair to equate being critical of the administration with being unpatriotic, logically, it is just as unfair to make the claim that those who put those shiny bumper stickers on their car automatically has to be a “Bushie” or must be “unconcerned” about the dangers our soldiers face. If supporting the troops really means anything from charitable work on their behalf to questioning the leader that put them in their present situation, you can’t reasonably complain about being viewed unpatriotic if you do question the administration while at the same time you lump all “Support the Troops” advocates into either the Republican camp.

After all, if one is so wrong, the other must be, too, right?

There is one line I do agree with:

“They have no right to criticize us who have opposed this war from the beginning - to question our patriotism - to accuse us of not supporting our men and women in Iraq.”

We all have the right, and the responsibility to be critical when we don’t agree. Lives are at stake. It’s not unpatriotic to question the administration.

If anything is unpatriotic, it’s the pretense that we must only exist in a “we” versus “they” society, that it has to be one way or the other. Both parties reinforce it at every possible turn to keep another party from gaining any real momentum. We spend all our time refuting anything the other says, often without taking the time to even listen. We wouldn’t know the truth when the other party says it, because by the time half of the speech has been delivered, the response is already posted.

But when our servicemen step onto the battlefield — whether you believe the battle is warranted or not — the emblem they wear on their uniform isn’t of a giant elephant. It’s the American flag. Our servicemen do not represent the GOP: they represent us. All of us. Republicans, Democrats, and everyone in between.

Like it or not, the troops — who are either being forced to participate in a war based on lies, or who are protecting our safety by fighting the War on Terror — are doing that work for you, regardless of your party affiliation.

My comment included this:

Is it fair to question the circumstances by which they were deployed? Absolutely.Is it right to ask why they don’t have more protection? Definitely.

Is it good form to question how few have been sent? Sure, though it might seem insincere if you also spend a lot of time complaining about the number and cost that have already been sent.

Is it accurate for an American citizen to say that the soldiers there are doing what OTHERS sent them to do? Unfortunately for political debaters, no.

They’re doing what WE ALL sent them there to do, and they’ll be doing it until WE ALL figure out a way to bring them back with as litle further cost as possible.

Generalizations and name calling, which long ago eclipsed baseball as the Great American Pastime, isn’t the way to bring both sides together. All it does is keep both sides from working together to dig through the rhetoric and look for the solutions to the problem: potentially the very solutions that will bring the troops home.

Sometimes, denouncing the other side becomes such a sport that exactly what’s being denounced doesn’t even matter. There’s no real discussion anymore. There’s only the choosing of sides based on who gets the best zingers in.

Both sides do it. Regularly.

And that what’s so unpatriotic in my book.

Carly has a great post over at “Ellipsis…Suddenly Carly” about the difference between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

Her post references a news article from “AOL News” about a Tampa woman who is the wife of a soldier serving in Iraq. He sent her a cardboard sign that reads, “Support Our Troops” and she put it on display in her front yard. That, in and of itself, doesn’t sound like a punishable offense.

Unfortunately, her homeowner’s association forbids signs of any kind in that neighborhood and it has threatened her with fines. She says she couldn’t believe that they would fine her for it, but she added that she was ready to pay.

A compromised was reached allowing her to keep the sign up and face a much lower fine while it is up, but the association stands behind its policy, which is designed to keep the neighborhood free of clutter.

According to the attached poll, 81% of people who read the article and took a poll feel that the homeowner’s association was wrong to fine her over the sign. (Count me in the other 19%.) What if a neighbor across the street puts up a sign about how wrong the war is? Is that equally okay, particularly when both parties agreed in advance to obey the rule about signs to begin with? If everyone in the neighborhood gets to put up their own sign about their feelings on the war, do they still have a clutter-free neighborhood?

It’s not about whether the message on her sign was pro-war or anti-war; I do still believe that it’s possible to support our troops without necessarily being a supporter of the action in which they’re required to participate. It seems to me that if you don’t support the war and you don’t support the troops, you would be happy every time you hear a news report about our troops suffering more losses. No matter how you feel about the war, I would think that most people would be hopeful that our troops will be able to accomplish good things for Iraq’s citizens and leave things in a far better condition than they found them. (A little idealistic, yes, but isn’t that what supporting troops in an unpopular action is all about?)

But the woman in Tampa adds this:

“If they’re gonna try to give us more than a thousand-dollar fine, there’s enough people out there that are willing to help me out.”

Carly asks if it’s okay to break the rules if you can find the right group of people to say it’s okay and then pay the way. I don’t think it is at all.

If someone wants to break a rule she agreed not to break because she feels strongly enough about a particular issue, whatever it is, she shouldn’t expect others to step in and pay for her actions. If she’s not willing to put her money where her sign is, why should she expect others to do so? As soon as she starts putting a dollar value on her free speech, she’s cheapening its value. Why not take down the sign and become an activist in her community, organizing drives to build care packages for the troops, for example? She could show her support for the troops in plenty of other ways without breaking someone else’s rule, and expecting others to pay for her mistakes.

Celebrities in the past who have spoken out against the war or against the president have faced repercussions. The Dixie Chicks, in particular, found out that speaking out against the president hit them in their pocketbooks, because radio stations across the country caved in amid demands from listeners that their music be pulled from the airwaves. The performers had every right to speak out with whatever political message they wanted to deliver. But their fans had every right to stop listening if they were so offended by that message. Is it unfair? Not at all, because those who oppose the war — and surveys show that this position is in the majority — have the same right not to patronize celebrities that openly support it. That doesn’t mean that those in the public eye have to remain silent, but they should be prepared to deal with angry fans if they take an unpopular position. (And if their position is so important to them, I should think that angering fans who disagree would be of little concern, anyway.)

Cindy Sheehan and the wife of a Republican lawmaker were recently escorted out of the Congress gallery for wearing t-shirts with opposing points of view about the war. It turned out that there was no rule preventing either woman from doing so, even if decorum might have suggested that they dress a little more formally. They paid consequences they shouldn’t have had to pay because they broke no rules.

George Clooney has, in previous interviews, suggested that Democrats are partly to blame for the war in Iraq because they failed to exercise their right of free speech sooner out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic. What’s better? To speak out loudly enough against the war to change people’s minds before things escalate and be labeled unpatriotic, or say too little, allow the war to go on, and then face the current dilemma of a costly war with no end in sight? The Republicans will always claim that Democrats are unpatriotic, so what would have been new there? What would they have really had to lose, considering how much they might have gained? There were still no real rules broken if lawmakers who opposed the war didn’t make their case loudly enough, but perhaps it could be argued that there was more of a moral duty for them to have done so. Hindsight, of course, is always perfect.

The question is, who’s more patriotic? The person who blindly follows whatever the administration says, or the person who is at least willing to question what he hears when something doesn’t make sense? By now, surely we all know the answer to that!

Living in a country that emphasizes freedom to the extent that ours does sometimes gives people the false sense of security when it comes to skewering their fellow citizens while operating under the assumption that there are no consequences for saying whatever you want: as long as you’re speaking your mind, there will never be fallout.

That’s not realistic at all.

Sometimes, like those celebrities who have seen their careers temporarily stymied over speaking out, the results of exercising your right to free speech are obvious. Sometimes, it’s more subtle, like those cases in which people feel that they’re running off friends because they speak their mind. No matter how severe the consequences seem to be, if you’re willing to run the risk, if you think speaking out in whatever manner you have previously chosen to is really worth what it keeps costing you, then why complain about those consequences?

On my dad’s side of the family, there was a tendency to speak politely and exchange endless pleasantries in the parlor, then move on to the dining room where loud, agressive arguments would always accompany dinner. It didn’t matter what the subject of the argument was; it was as if the most important thing was that there was an argument about something while we were trying to eat. That kind of behavior doesn’t encourage that many return visits to their table, but as the number of returning dinner guests dwindled, those “spirited discussions” always continued. If they ever put two and two together, they didn’t seem to care. But they never complained about people never accepting invites.

Don’t whine about how many sales or how many subscribers or how much money or how many friends speaking out your way costs you when history has shown you again and again what it will cost. Either your position and your method of presenting it is right or they’re not: either pay the price or rethink your strategy. That should be common sense!

Don’t play the victim to me over the fact that people have turned on you because of what you do or don’t believe. If I disagree with you, it’s because I think you’re wrong, not because I’m trying to make sure you lose some kind of non-existent popularity contest. On the other hand, if I agree with you on your position, then telling me what you’ve had to suffer because of those who don’t agree doesn’t accomplish anything, either, because I can no more control their reactions than you can. You’re wasting everyone’s time, most of all you’re own.

Only those who are blind to the fact that they might be wrong or that there might be a more diplomatic way to get their point across effectively will behave however they wish, constantly complain about the effects of that behavior or expect others to rush to their defense, and never bother to examine whether their own actions might have caused the whole mess to begin with.

When you speak your mind however you wish and everyone seems to turn on you…sometimes the problem is you, not them!

Shelly recently posted her take on speaking out in blogs, after reading a Chicago Tribune article about employees who have been fired for blogging about their jobs.

(Out of respect to her wishes, I did not post a response in her blog and I am not posting a link to her entry.)

In any case, she makes excellent points and I agree wholeheartedly with her take on Freedom of Speech, and the notion that freedoms and rights come with responsibilities.

She states:

When I see people get into nasty arguments online, aka the horrid flamewars, I think about this. X says something Y doesn’t like, so Y insults X. X gets enraged and insults Y back. Y cries foul, say he or she has the right to say what they did, that X is trying to censor them, etc. Well, if Y gets to insult X, then X gets to insult Y. If X disagrees with Y, X is allowed to say so. What neither X or Y can do legally is incite violence or criminal activity.

She’s right about that. But too often, I think, people seem to think that they can’t disagree without making it personal. In some ways, it’s at least a good thing that people feel passionate enough about their positions that they would consider anyone who disagrees as mounting some kind of personal attack. But people can disagree without turning it personal if they really try. Even best friends can have differing opinions. That’s not an insult, that’s life.

In her example, X says something that Y doesn’t like, so Y insults X. Why can’t Y just make a counter-argument without insult? Sometimes, the insults come later…sometimes Y does just make their own position known, and then X insults Y for disagreeing. Sooner or later, it seems, the temptation to be the first to take the “low road” is just too high.

I believe that debate is good; even if it doesn’t change the minds of the debaters, it at least clarifies positions and gives readers the opportunity to think about where their positions fall. Sometimes a nice jibe can be entertaining, but it does little to make an effective argument. It can even turn people away from your point if the insults get out of hand.

When “The Dixie Chicks” spoke out against the war in Iraq a few years ago, many listeners, angered by the “lack of patriotism,” called radio stations demanding that their music be pulled. Many stations temporarily complied. Questioning what an administration tells you doesn’t show a lack of patriotism in my book; that, to me, doing so is more of a duty of the patriotic. But just as “The Dixie Chicks” had every right to speak their minds, their fans had every right to stop listening to their music as a result of their remarks. Those who speak out don’t get to do so without the possibility of response. That’s one of the nice things about Freedom of Speech: it goes both ways.

But a funny thing happened when some started turning off their radios: everyone started arguing about whether the group had the right to make their feelings known — they did! — and whether or not consumers had a right to respond by boycotting the group — they did!

The group’s real message, expressing dissent about the war, got lost in the windstorm. Even when the group made a public apology, all that accomplished was settling down some of the people who had been so outraged that they’d speak out. The dialog about the war didn’t come back to the forefront when their music started getting regular play again. By then, people had pretty much lost sight of it.

Writing about the workplace may seem like a great way to relieve stress, but people are finding out the hard way that if the wrong person reads the digs at the boss, someone might get a pink slip. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the reality of the situation. You can be convinced that you have the worst boss in the world. But when you start naming names and being honest, you never know whether your boss might be one of those “lurkers” who hangs around your journal to see who’s saying what.

When “flamewars” begin, some people are attracted to the exchance only because they enjoy reading those quick-witted, snide comments. But when the reader starts looking only for the mean-spirited comebacks, aren’t they ignoring the meat of the argument? Don’t the arguments then begin to get bogged down, even forgotten, in favor of the insults? It’s not a question of who has the most valid points anymore, it’s a question of who “one-upped” the other the best.

Shelly suggests that personal responsibility may be dying in our society, that it could be the result of things being taken for granted. I wouldn’t begin to argue with that!

I hope you’re all having a Happy 4th of July! I did some driving around looking for photo subjects when I passed a small school playground on Richmond’s south side where someone decided to put up a patriotic display just in time for Independence Day.

I thought this day would also be appropriate to reveal who you chose as “Greatest American” from the Discovery Channel’s Top Ten nominees.

As you may recall, their voters named Ronald Reagan as the greatest American in our history. Your selections didn’t agree with that choice.

Two of their top ten nominees were in a tie for third place: Oprah Winfrey (for reasons I can’t begin to imagine), and Bill Clinton. Both received 5% each.

Five of the top ten were in a tie for second place: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Elvis Presley (for reasons I can’t begin to imagine), Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr. All five came in with 9% each.

Abraham Lincoln was a resounding number one with 45% of the vote. He ranked second in the official Discovery Channel broadcast. Oddly enough, Ronald Reagan joined George W. Bush in terms of not receiving a single vote.

The new poll is asking your input about what makes a good blog. Unlike previous polls I’ve done so far, this one allows you to choose more than one attribute that you think is important, so please cast your vote.

Last week’s poll gave you the chance to sound off on a proposed law to make desecrating the American flag against the law.

Of those who voted, 85% are in favor of protecting the flag.

Now it’s time for a new topic: Who is the greatest American in history? The Discovery Channel surveyed its viewers to narrow the candidates from 100 to 25 to 10. Of the top ten, Ronald Reagan came out on top!

Do you agree? The new poll on the sidebar gives you the chance to pick your choice of the top 10 as determined by the Discovery Channel. Is Reagan your top man, or would you have given the honor to someone else on the list? Cast your vote on the sidebar!

When Bill Clinton ran for President, the Republicans made a big deal about his lack of military service. The Democrats said this was unfair and didn’t mean that he would be an ineffective leader.

Now, George W. Bush’s military service is being called into question by many of those same Democrats, and it’s the Republicans crying foul.

This typical political skirmish leads me to wonder whether the Constitution should be adjusted to add military service as a qualification for becoming president. It seems to me that the other side is going to call one’s military record into question no matter who is running. And I can’t agree that it’s all that fair.

Part of the controversy lies in the argument that President Bush joined the Air National Guard to avoid being sent to Viet Nam. Thankfully, I’m young enough to have missed that draft, but if I had the chance to avoid going to Viet Nam back then, I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t have taken it. I understand why those who did so chose that route. It makes me respect those who did go to Viet Nam that much more, but I understand.

What about someone who has never served, even in times of peace? You never know when war will break out. Even when all seems right with the world, joining up could still put you in the middle of a conflict. Is someone like me who has never served in the military even when it was “quiet” less of a citizen? Am I less patriotic?

In the business sector, workers get promotions. They rise in the ranks, and the top man can very often find himself supervising large companies in which there are employees doing jobs he’s never done before. That doesn’t mean he can’t be a good leader…it just means he needs people around him who will help him make the right decisions.

I don’t mean to be the slightest bit disrespectful of our veterans: it is their very sacrifices that allow us today to write these silly journal entries in a free country. I just wonder where we draw the line on one’s responsibility as a citizen.