Looking for Patriotism

This week National Public Radio reported on Somali-Americans recruited into terrorism. It got me thinking why these kids whose parents had gotten an opportunity in the States to start a new life would be compelled to go back to Somalia and fight Jihad. Following up I considered the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, popular culture's references to anti-American sentiments, and partisan attacks; all of these are symptoms of the unraveling of our American identity.

Patriots are not ignorant, flag-waving yes-men blindly following selfish old white men who think they know better than everyone. This is the image of a patriot protesters of the '60s and'70s retalliated against. McCarthyism, Jim Crow, the war machine, and Wall Street big shots were the face of America in that era. So many were so very frustrated they rebelled. Consider these lyrics from a popular song:

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Fortunate Son"

There is a sad situation, then, where, as John Edwards put it, we have "two Americas." This stratification and sense of injustice and animosity threatens to tear our country apart. Like sectarian violence in the Middle East and immigrant anti-nationalism in Europe, this disparity among Americans is tearing us apart.

Patriotism is the answer. What brings us to the table should be our sense of national identity and the shared values and responsibilities we as Americans have. We will always have economic disparity. We will always have bigotry. We will always have disagreements. We will always have poverty, hunger, crime, favoritism. As Americans we can wrestle through these things without ripping our nation apart.

When someone says, "I'm embarrassed to be an American," or "they are un-American," or even hopes for the destruction of our nation and our neighbors they are chipping away at the integrity of our national identity. The Stars and Stripes, our Constitution, our government, and our national heritage are symbols of our country's greatness. Its values are greater than our differences. Its institutions are greater than partisan manipulation. Alexis de Toqueville is aattributed as saying,

America is great because she is good.
When she ceases to be good, she will no longer be great.

May we never lose that sense of goodness and belief in a good America.

Hussein, Can You See?

During the Presidential campaign and following I have expressed outrage at detractors who would use our President's middle name, Hussein, as a derogatory term. It has been embarrassing for a conservative like myself. So I was surprised and a bit miffed when I heard the President say to an Arab audience that America was special to elect a man named "Barack Hussein Obama."

I'm all for being proud of your heritage. But I've been working vigorously to convince my conservative friends he's a Christian, he is not Muslim. But here it was as if he was saying to the Islamic listeners I'm one of you. Forgive my presumptiveness, but it is unfair to guys like myself for the President to exploit his name this way when considering it bad form when opponents do the same.

The End of Debate

Friday's Presidential debate was anything but. Neither candidate behaved Presidential, nor did they debate. This election was supposed to be different. Both candidates touted high ideals and promised a campaign of ideas, not words. It has deteriorated into zingers and talking points meant to woo voters.

Friday night was supposed to be a thoughtful debate of those ideas. It was an excellent format: moderated by Jim Lehrer (host of the esteemed PBS program Newshour), the topics would be presented, each would give a two-minute summary, then they would debate the ideas for five minutes with each other. This was the format agreed upon by the candidates months ago.

Instead of thoughtful debate over ideas, Senators McCain and Obama disintegrated into election-year jabs and political talking points. The ideas presented were cut from advisors and broad plans, but little was foundational or substantial. Obama used the "Bush-McCain mantra" while McCain continued his "voice of experience" argument. McCain pushed his "I'm a maverick," and "earmarks are evil" comfort points, even when they were vaguely relevant. Obama postured "what I've called for" as if the President writes legislation.

Lehrer compelled them over and over "say it directly to him." "I'm determined to get you all to talk to each other," Lehrer implored. Obama finally engaged, McCain never looked to his opponent (or the camera). This is a position where world leaders confront each other. These guys must prove they can engage. We want a lion who will lead, not a golden retriever who will dutifully fetch.

I wasn't around in the 1860s, so I did not get to see Lincoln and Douglas debate, but I have seen high schoolers and college students follow guidelines and engage each other more passionately and with less posturing than these two. If one of these me wants my vote, they should get over their hubris and one-upsmanship. McCain should stop trying to be Teddy Roosevelt and Obama stop pointing fingers at others bad judgment calls.

In my opinion, McCain lost what could be construed as a debate handily. He drew the discussion off topic and shallowly defended his various points. Obama, while casting a broad net of ideas, did present considerable arguments for his positions. Earmarks are necessary for congressional business to get done and they are abused, but the President will have to let congress deal with those because he does not have a line-item veto. Presidents' agendas get overtaken by events (consider the Bush campaign of '00 and '04 who won as a "compassionate conservative" but became the progenitor of overarching executive power).

Watch online at www.youdecide2008.com.

Revisited

I listened again to the debate. The candidates did, at points, delve deeply into issues and explained the merits of their viewpoints and how they make decisions. It was regrettable, however, that political pandering and smearing were so prominent and sullied the stronger parts.

Donald Miller's Benediction

I was proud of Donald Miller's benediction after Monday's DNC Convention. He is influential, thoughtful, and represents a new evangelical Christian. Social justice will take a lot of us out of the GOP this year. The Republican party will have to answer for its missteps and the Democrats will have to live up to their rhetoric. The new Christian majority has a broader platform and is actively leading in setting things right.

Letter to Gov. Sebelius regarding classist comments

Your comment, "John McCain has lived the American dream but he, somehow, doesn't feel it should be opened up to all Americans," was grossly unfair. Because he has disagreed on various fiscal policies as your party members have put forth and has married a woman who had wealth before they were married is no indication that he is maliciously holding others back. Classist rhetoric as a philosophy is one thing, but used to deride one's opponent is beneath the dignity of your office and corrosive in this political climate.

See comment here (around 12:30 into the broadcast). Note how she continues the jabs afterword. Rewind to around 10:30 to see McCain's comments to Katie Couric.

Is Russia Right?

I just watched feed from the U.N. on CNN. Russia's U.N. ambassador to the Security Council argued that it had no obligation, under its agreement with France and Georgia, to "immediate withdrawal." Instead, he argues they will withdraw as the international community can ensure the Georgian army stands down and its weapons and bases are secured. He also asserts the Russian army entered the disputed territories to protect the people from the Georgian army and that it only entered Georgia's soverign area, including the cities it now occupies, when Georgians fired upon them.

When our nation has worked to interject its will into other nations using force, we have justified these actions. The U.S. has preturbed the international community by acting on its own. These actions have usually resulted in little more than strong disapproval. Latin America, Middle East, Southeast Asia have all seen American involvement at the detriment of "national integrity." In light of such a history, American censure ring hypocritical.

Americans are critical of the media in its coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, whether we charge them as biased against the administration or acting as puppets of the same. Surely coverage of items across the globe deserve similar scrutiny. Perhaps we are too complacent as our daily comforts are in jeopardy or we just have short memories for this nation's own indiscretions abroad. Either way, we should hear both sides before falling lock in step with rhetoric and propaganda.

John McCain and the "Agents of Intolerance"

It was eight years ago -- February 28, 2008, precisely -- when then Presidential candidate John McCain delivered a searing speech before a crowd of Virginia voters critical of some in the Republican establishment, and he named names. Then-candidate McCain faced a governor from Texas and son of a previous President, George W. Bush. The Republican nomination had not been decided and many in the religious right had decided their candidate was Bush.

McCain had been embroiled in public attacks on his voting record, labeled as a closet liberal, or at best a renegade. His politics and voting record were contorted. He didn't fall in line with all of the talking points of the influential Republican stalwarts. He was the target of a determined and powerful machine of rhetoric and cronyism that would eventually land George W. Bush the party's nomination.

In the now-famous "Agents of Intolerance" speech, McCain drew a line in the sand and made a compelling argument for why he should be the candidate of the Republican party. He responded without apology to a smear campaign orchestrated by party supporters who backed Bush and held significant sway. Among these was Pat Robertson.

Robertson had joined a cacophony of religious leaders critical of McCain's choice as campaign chair a man who had warned of the party embracing closed-minded people who hold their personal values at the exclusion of others' liberties. Specifically, he pointed to those who took a stand against abortion, gay marriage, and indecent content in the media.

McCain fired back, pointing fingers and naming names of those who would buy a place at the table for their views and push their values on Americans. He identified Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Bob Jones University in particular. These were the stalwarts of "Family values" and represented a significant group of Republican voters.

McCain's speech further ostracized him as an outsider and out of touch with values voters. However, his speech was an omen of the then-disregarded trend in American politics away from an hyper-partisan race for money and influence and toward consensus of different-minded representatives. McCain called to the forefront the issues that made many Americans lose heart with the Republican party. A party that had been established upon particular principles of liberty and fairness had been identified with a particular block that did not represent a growing number of Americans in general.

Recently the now-favored McCain found it difficult to live up to his own speech. In a media malestorm he found himself seen as pandering to some of these, the newer breed of leaders in the Evangelical right. McCain recanted the support of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, both of whom had made comments associated with their interpretation of Scripture and culture that were construed as offensive and intolerant.

As the candidate of the party he has taken to mending bridges and developing camaraderie. These actions could be seen as laudable leadership or desperate pandering. A maverick finds it difficult to carry the weight of his fight as leader. He has made compromises and taken criticism. John McCain of 2008 is not running as he did in 2000, but he may surprise many in the general campaign if he returns to some of his old values and stands:

• protecting the sanctity of life
• providing for veterans' care
• preserving Social Security and Medicare
• inspiring public involvement in government
• instituting campaign finance reform
• rejecting empire building

The Military-Industrial Complex

Dwight D. Eisenhower, distinguished military general and President of the United States, in the wake of World War II, presented a speech that rings ominously true today. In it he proposed the dangers that could occur if our nation relied on an intimate relationship between the government and the defense equipment industry. I cannot add to his words without taking away from their poignancy, so here I present section IV of his speech.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Read the speech at http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Watch an excerpt:

The China Boycott Bandwagon

This morning I watched a story on the folks boycotting the Chinese Olympics. People have voiced tremendous outrage regarding China's "occupation" of Tibet. As a nation, China has its differences with many of us in the West. It is the last great communist nation and a super power. But China is also a sovereign nation and was chosen fairly as host of these games.

Nations, interest groups and world leaders are hopping on the bandwagon to protest the games and influence China to release it hold on Tibet. These groups have held the pre-game celebrations in their grip by disrupting violently the running of the celebrated Olympic torch.

What has long been a tradition of international cooperation, despite several differences, to promote healthy competition, rewarding hard work, and helping build infrastructure in host countries in being manipulated. Those who cause physical harm a threaten to disrupt and interfere in public celebrations are using terror as their tool: they are terrorists.

An effective way to protest Chinese policies is o boycott their products, to write your political representatives, and to petition their government. Holding others who simply want to enjoy this truly international celebration in fear.

It is amazing that certain people condemn folks who "judge others" are so adamant in something they oppose. But now is not that time. Now is a time for international cooperation and a little healthy rivalry. Now, let's celebrate! Let's enjoy! Lay down the gloves, stop bickering over political differences.

Throwing Stones

I am tired of the Elliot Spitzer mess. Really! It was a big story and has important implications for the state of New York. It is an historic moment. It is a situation we could all learn from.

What gets me is the political posturing and finger pointing. People are actually gloating over the fall of the governor. Nobody likes their laundry aired in the public, and these folks are all in it! Like driving past a train wreck, we get caught up in the carnage.

I want to scream THIS IS A PERSON! He is hurting. His wife is hurting. His girls are hurting. Jesus stood up for a woman who was caught in adultery. The religious leaders had humilliated her and were going to throw rocks at her untill she bled to death. Jesus told them

Let he who has no sin cast the first stone

The news folks are wrong. The politicians are wrong. The commentators are wrong. Every one of us making judgements about this man's conduct are wrong. No one is perfect. No one deserves a lick of the blessings we enjoy.

Our words are the stones we throw and a person's spirit is the target. A man who has been caught in sin does not need condemnation, but restoration. Sure, we want o see justice and he deserves the punishment for his crimes. But Mr. Spitzer and his family need to know that they're no worse than any of us. Just broken people trying to make it in a messed up world.

Some of us happen to find the mercy of God in spite of it all.

Maybe we need a little revival

Earmarks: What and why

If you've followed D.C. politics the last few years, you'll know the term earmarks. They are vilified by the Bush administration and have plagued both Republican and Democrat congresses as wasteful spending. For all of the news about, the condemnations of, and the commitments to change the process of earmarking in congress, there has been little explanation of the practice.

In short, earmarks are items attached to bills that pay for a project without going through the scrutiny of congressional and executive approval. Think of going to the grocery store with a budget and a shopping list. As you walk through the aisle, you realize you wanted pickles. Now, it wasn't on the list. Knowing you're going to spend more than was budgeted, you decide not to call everyone to make sure it's okay to spend the extra couple of bucks and buy the pickles. This is essentially earmarking.

When you add an item here and there, it's no big deal. In fact, it's more convenient. The problem is, when it becomes common practice to tack 20 to 30 bucks of extras on your grocery trip every couple of weeks. This is what congress has done. To get around approving every spending item they add them to other, often unrelated, spending bills.

Earmarks have gone from being a convenient way to pay for incidental expenses to a way for congresspersons to pay for pet projects back home. They have become the bread and butter of many hoping to win re-election in their districts. Responsible use of earmarks makes congress more efficient. Abuse of earmarks results in overspending and questionable use of federal dollars.

You can't be president and head of the military at the same time

"You can't be president and head of the military at the same time." That's not my words, but George W. Bush's [1]. Those were interesting words coming from the United State's Head of State and Commander-in-chief [2]. In light of his words, I contemplated how precarious our democratic government is.

At issue is that President Musharaf overtook the government and has held the government of Pakistan in a military coup. Threatened by Islamists in the rural regions and a popular political adversary in an upcoming election, the president instituted military rule last week, suspending the nation's constitution. Lawyers were furious and have raised a groundswell of resistance.

Ours is a unique situation. We have lived more than two hundred years under this constitution. For most of us, this seems like it will last forever. In an interview on C-SPAN's Afterwords [3], Naomi Wolf, author of "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" pointed out trends she sees toward the gradual end of our liberties as our federal government assumes more executive power.

Perhaps the President's words will serve as a warning to our nation in the near future.

1) read the speech

2) wikipedia: "President of the Unite..."

3) Link to audio interview

Mike Huckabee: strong on domestic issues

LITTLE ROCK, AR – Former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR) won the support of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today. The IAM, for the first time in its 119 year history, endorsed candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

Huckabee welcomed the IAM endorsement stating, "I’m proud to have the support of the workers who bring prosperity to America on a daily basis."

Huckabee spoke before over 700 members of the IAM in Orlando, Florida on Monday about jobs, globalization, health care, and other 21st century domestic issues. During his conversation with IAM workers, Huckabee stated, "In order for this country to be free, there are three things we must do: feed ourselves, fuel ourselves and fight for ourselves. That means we need to be manufacturing our own means of defense and making it a national security issue."

During his speech on Monday night, Huckabee outlined his program to improve the lives of working Americans, including his support of the Fair Tax. Under the Fair Tax, he said, "American companies are far less likely to move overseas and foreign companies are far more likely to come here, hiring Americans to build and work in their new plants."

Huckabee also said he believes in fair trade. "Free trade has to be fair trade. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families, real lives, and real pain. I'm running for President because I don't want people who have worked loyally for a company for 20 or 30 years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, ‘I'm sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here.’"

Huckabee received the historic endorsement this morning during the final day of IAM’s National Staff Conference. Shortly after receiving the news, Huckabee thanked President Tom Buffenbarger on a phone call : "I appreciate the unprecedented opportunity to participate in the IAM meeting this week and to receive this historic endorsement."

Korean Hostages Released: Mixed blessings

Yesterday brought the announcement that the South Korean government had come to an agreement with Taliban leaders who vowed to release all of the surviving hostages. This agreement solidified plans for the Asian country to withdraw its soldiers and cease missionary work in Afghanistan. They insist the decision had already been made to do so.

The story is a relief to families of the hostages and people around the world who have hoped and prayed for their release. It certainly encourages many who feared the worst. However -- as much as I work to stay on the lighter side, I must confess -- this apparent compromise may prove a setback to efforts to restrain Islamists worldwide.

Considering the tremendous resources spent to turn the tide of control, any setback is tremendously costly. Not that human lives are not worthy of saving. In fact, a culture of life demands one to work to protect lives. But we must also consider the risks and responsibilities for our actions. As a soldier enters the service, he is laying his life on the line for others. In the same way, contractors, missionaries and volunteers who go to war-torn areas risk their lives. Knowing this risk, they choose to become hostages or even martyrs if it happens.

So, who bears the responsibility? When governments warn their citizens that an area is a risk, they have done their part. When military work to empower local communities to stand up to insurgents, they have done their part. When aide agencies and churches worldwide work with local community leaders, they have done their part.

There is a need for help in desperate areas of the world and many feel obliged to help. If that leads them to go there in person, they should "count the cost." For families and friends left behind, it is heart-wrenching to see a loved one in peril. They should not petition their government to cave in or sabotage efforts to illigetimize a group that only takes hostages to get credibility and stir fear.

The Faith of Barak Obama

Last year (or so) I read a book that opened my eyes to the way church and politics should relate called God's Politics: Why the right gets it wrong and the left just doesn't get it. The author, Jim Wallis, has a "progressive" organization called Sojourner at http://www.sojo.net. They recently hosted a conference that featured Obama in which he shared the following speech. It's worth the half-hour listen.

Hate Crimes Bill?

The conservative grass roots are up in arms over H.R. 254 [1], a bill before congress that would prohibit "certain acts of violence" causing "bodily injury... because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person."

For some reason, many of these voices decry the legislation, claiming it will keep pastors from speaking about religious and cultural hot topics. As I read the law, speaking out against something is not a hate crime. Far from it, the bill focuses on physical actions that lead to bodily harm. The only viable argument I see the right making is it "giving homosexuals special rights... alongside race, religion and gender" [2]. This is an extremely tenuous slippery slope argument that is difficult to justify, but, unfortunately, will play into fears of many conservatives who will not look carefully at the bill.

On the conservative side, I think the worse threat is the bill's loose interpretation of interstate activities used to justify the passage. This is a thin line that can be more detrimental to individual liberties than prohibiting physical abuse based on "sexual orientation."

1. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.254:
2. http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=9395716