FRANK MILLER'S "THIS I BELIEVE ESSAY" NOW POSTED

[MattBrady]

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/general/TIB_Miller_Frank_fullphoto.jpg" border="0" align="right">As announce previously, Frank Miller read his essay on this morning’s edition of “This I Believe” on NPR stations around the country.

The essay is now posted at the “This I Believe” site (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518 ), and makes for a fascinating insight on the views of one of modern comics’ most acclaimed creators on patriotism and the flag, and is especially interesting, not only today, on the fifth anniversary of September 11th, 2001, but also when taking a look back at Miller’s work and his use of the American flag as an icon and symbol in his work, both before and after 9/11.

An excerpt from his essay:

<blockquote>Both of my parents were World War II veterans. FDR-era patriots. And I was exactly the age to rebel against them.

It all fit together rather neatly. I could never stomach the flower-child twaddle of the '60s crowd and I was ready to believe that our flag was just an old piece of cloth and that patriotism was just some quaint relic, best left behind us.

It was all about the ideas. I schooled myself in the writings of Madison and Franklin and Adams and Jefferson. I came to love those noble, indestructible ideas. They were ideas, to my young mind, of rebellion and independence, not of idolatry.

But not that piece of old cloth. To me, that stood for unthinking patriotism. It meant about as much to me as that insipid peace sign that was everywhere I looked: just another symbol of a generation's sentimentality, of its narcissistic worship of its own past glories.</blockquote>Click the link above for the full essay. and an mp3 version.

[razorwing77]

Just read it. Good stuff.

[Spider-Bob]

The American Flag, like any symbol, reflects the values of those associated with it - it's imperative upon each of us to live up to our ideals so that our symbols will have positive meaning in the future for our progeny and those of other nations - otherwise Old Glory may become relegated the scrapheap of symbols that include the Nazi swastika and the Soviet hammer and sickle.

[MillerLite]

I still don't really know where Miller stands. Is he a big right winger, damning all who don't fall in line with President Bush, or is it really just about the flag and a sense of unity for the country? I wonder if he renounces his previous work, like Martha Washington, or if it still fits in to his logic in some way.

[Commander X]

I hope everyone who was quick to attack and/or judge Miller when this was first announced take the time to read this (relatively short) essay. I wasn't sure what to think then and I'm still thinking it over now, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to read this.

I'm also glad there really wasn't any political posturing or mention of party lines... the important thing is Miller's AMERICAN patriotism, not his Republican Patriotism or Democratic Patriotism.

American.

"So you've got to do what you can to help your country survive. That's if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all."

[Bevbos]

I don't know what to make of it either. I understand Miller's disdain for peace symbol hypocrisy, but there's more than enough hypocrisy surrounding defense of Old Glory, and a lot of it is more violent and spiteful than the hypocrisy surrounding the peace symbol.

I can look at our flag flying above the WTC site and be proud, perhaps inspired... but I can't see our President in front of it and feel the same thing.

Like Spider-Bob said, you can read what you want into this symbol. I think a blind defense of it is a poor thing, though. The Hammer and Sickle once promised liberation to the Russians, and quickly became a symbol of oppression. What will Old Glory come to stand for in coming years?

[kbfore]

Glad to see the Millar is proud of his country. I am suprised it took such an event to realize what he and his fellow countrymen have. I am sure that he will get some negative response for actually bringing up that the enemy wants us to die. The flag is meaningfull and if you don't understand that there is no point in anyone trying to explain it.

[Lonewolf]

I dont understand it.

What's his point? Does he make one? :confused:

[Spider-Bob]

I am sure that he will get some negative response for actually bringing up that the enemy wants us to die.

I don't know why. After all they wouldn't be very good enemies if they didn't want us dead. Hell I'm sure that a lot of our "friends" would like for us to die also, but that's the price of being the biggest dog on the block.

[mauer]

I dont understand it.

What's his point? Does he make one? :confused:
I'm not really sure...

[Thaddy-boy]

I wonder if he renounces his previous work, like Martha Washington, or if it still fits in to his logic in some way.

Every person evolves in a different way. If I recall, Goldwater was a staunch conservative who "lightened up" towards the end of his life.

Miller's always seemed like a libertarian to me.

[kbfore]

I don't know why. After all they wouldn't be very good enemies if they didn't want us dead. Hell I'm sure that a lot of our "friends" would like for us to die also, but that's the price of being the biggest dog on the block.

Do you watch the news? Everytime someone attempts to point out the enemy or even say "Islamic Facist" (or anything labeling) they are called uncaring or told not to hurt feelings or anger them. You are correct about the biggest dog. At times I consider it jealous feelings rather than hate.

[NeoSamurai]

I loved the essay. He focuses on symbolism of "the flag" and "Americanism" rather than political rhetoric. It's people, not propoganda (Right, left--they're all the same.)

Very nice.

[BrownieElf]

I was pretty nauseated by it, jingoistic tripe that was incredibly unsettling in this era of globalization.

Brownie Elf,
not an American citizen, but a WORLD CITIZEN!

And damn proud of it.

[MillerLite]

I agree, Miller does seem like a libertarian. But it's the Republican party that has wrapped themselves in the flag and will denounce anyone who stands against them as unpatriotic. Miller's quotes stressing patriotism and the flag make me wonder. Or is Miller going for a more pure patriotism, which really isn't reflected by either Dems or Repubs?

I also agree with Lonewolf. What was the point? I don't quite get his message, except that we need to stand together to fight terrorists. But how, exactly? Do we really have to keep following this inept administration into blunder after blunder? Isn't there room for dissent? Just because we don't want to fight the way Bush wants us to (like pulling out CIA agents looking for Bin Laden to go to Iraq, see: this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/09/AR2006090901105.html)), it doesn't mean that we don't want to fight our enemy. Most people on the left also feel there needs to be a fight with the terrorists, but we don't think pissing off the rest of the world is helping.

I guess I'm pretty disappointed with this essay, more than anything. I just expected more from Miller, a theme that has run through his work for more than a few years now...

[HG_studios]

Brownie Elf,
not an American citizen, but a WORLD CITIZEN!

If only more people thought this way...

Perhaps one day...

[NeoSamurai]

Brownie Elf,
not an American citizen, but a WORLD CITIZEN!

And damn proud of it.

Yeah--it's not like you can't claim that in say, China, or Iran or North Korea or most of the African Nations without being "disappeared"

America--such a drain on the human spirit for all the problems it causes in the world.

[Jason A. Quest]

The American Flag, like any symbol, reflects the values of those associated with it - it's imperative upon each of us to live up to our ideals so that our symbols will have positive meaning in the future for our progeny and those of other nations - otherwise Old Glory may become relegated the scrapheap of symbols that include the Nazi swastika and the Soviet hammer and sickle.I think a better example is the Confederate stars-and-bars: It's used by some people to represent something utterly vile (racism), and by others to represent something more benign (regional identity and culture). For me, personally, Old Glory has too much of a stink to it for me to ever forget and just moon over, but I can at least understand and recognize when others are trying to use it as a symbol of something more positive. I think Miller's trying to aim for that.

[KevenGardner]

Simply a nice, thought provoking essay. I guess I missed the memo, but when did it become “controversial” to love being an American? Good job Frank.

[NeoSamurai]

Miller's quotes stressing patriotism and the flag make me wonder. Or is Miller going for a more pure patriotism, which really isn't reflected by either Dems or Repubs?

I think that was the point. If you look at policy it really is dictated by partisan politics rather than what is good for America as a whole which DOES include the need to recognize interconnectivity of world affairs more so than the old view of power politics during the cold war.

[Spider-Bob]

Do you watch the news? Everytime someone attempts to point out the enemy or even say "Islamic Facist" (or anything labeling) they are called uncaring or told not to hurt feelings or anger them. You are correct about the biggest dog. At times I consider it jealous feelings rather than hate.

Watch, read and listen to the news everyday all day. I would caution that labeling has a tendency to reduce our enemies to a stereotype intended more to placate the base notions of the public and give them assurances that those that would do us harm are easily spotted and therefore more easy punished. That type of thinking has two flaws. One is that it ignores people like Tim McVeigh, a white middle-American man who before 9/11 was the greatest mass-murder in US history. The second is to create hostility within those of other cultures that may have otherwise been sympathetic too our national interests - yet because their religion, culture or physical appearance had been vilified for political purposes they are inclined to work against us.

[Johnny Triangles]

That type of thinking has two flaws. One is that it ignores people like Tim McVeigh, a white middle-American man who before 9/11 was the greatest mass-murder in US history.

And one flaw in YOUR thinking is that it takes an exception, Timothy McVeigh, and uses it to create a moral relativism to a much more common occurrence, the Islamofascist. With all due respect, that's very sloppy logic. The mere fact you have to go back to 1995 for your example of American terrorism is pretty telling in and of itself.

[smitch]

I was pretty nauseated by it, jingoistic tripe that was incredibly unsettling in this era of globalization.

Brownie Elf,
not an American citizen, but a WORLD CITIZEN!

And damn proud of it.

Tell that to the people beheading civilians in the middle east: "But, I'm a World Citizen!" I think there's room to be both, but nationalism is here to stay in all parts of the globe. Utopia will not be reached of our own volition.

[stvnhthr]

Nice speech by Frank. Kind of cool to see him do a whole 180 degree turn from his thoughts he presented in that 9/11 comic which was a slap in the face to all those who love our country. I love when a liberal wakes up.

[NeoSamurai]

Tell that to the people beheading civilians in the middle east: "But, I'm a World Citizen!" I think there's room to be both, but nationalism is here to stay in all parts of the globe. Utopia will not be reached of our own volition.

Agreed with most of your points except Nationalism =/= patriotism. America is too segmented to ever have a nationalistic identity.

[Spaz_Monkey]

I am a Republican. Born and raised (to my mom's dismay). Not one of these God-awful 'neo-cons' that seems to have polluted the party, just so you know.
I am also a disabled veteran. I served in the Army under President Clinton, a Democrat. I didn't agree with his politics, but that didn't matter.
Serving in the military is NEVER about party politics. It is about the love of your country, the willingness to sacrifice yourself to defend your country. To a veteran, the flag is more than just a symbol; It is the blood, the lives, the sacrifices made of all who came before us in making this country free. It is the colonials, freezing to death in attempt to break free of the British Crown. It is the whites dying by the thousands to free the blacks. It is the sleeping Navy men in Pearl Harbor, never knowing that they'd die before reveille. It is the fire fighters and police officers giving their lives to save as many as they could from the World Trade Center.
The American Flag may be related to a president, for a short time. But in the long run, the flag truly represents the countless thousands who have lived and died in service of their country.

[SportyFork]

Best line in the essay: "So you've got to do what you can to help your country survive. That's if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all."

Sad when Americans view of their own country changes when their guy isn't in the White House. There have been plenty of administrations that I had a major distaste for, but that didn't stop how I felt towards America. I do what I can to support America no matter what. This is my country, no matter what. Call it blind patriotism, but I agree with Miller's statement above.

[Spider-Bob]

And one flaw in YOUR thinking is that it takes an exception, Timothy McVeigh, and uses it to create a moral relativism to a much more common occurrence, the Islamofascist. With all due respect, that's very sloppy logic. The mere fact you have to go back to 1995 for your example of American terrorism is pretty telling in and of itself.

Sloppy logic is assuming that you can brand or label a group of people and be assured that you know their motivations and predict their actions. Perhaps I'm getting to be an old-fart, but 1995 doesn't seem that long ago to me. In 1995 Tim McVeigh was actually the latest in a trend of American domestic terrorists. Before him was the Unabomber, the Weather Underground, Army of God, Ku Klux Klan, and the 1920 dynamite bombing of Wall Street. All committed by people who couldn't be conveniently labeled for their national origin, culture, religion or skin color - because they fit-in.

[Cientista]

Tell that to the people beheading civilians in the middle east: "But, I'm a World Citizen!" I think there's room to be both, but nationalism is here to stay in all parts of the globe. Utopia will not be reached of our own volition.

Just because they don't see it the same way, that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in mankind has a whole. That should be exactly what separates us from opressors and fundamentalists. So yeah, patriotism is still worthless and a nuisance (and I say this as someone who comes from Portugal). It creates physical and mental borders. And nationalism is what nazis were all about.

[Toneloak]

Best line in the essay: "So you've got to do what you can to help your country survive. That's if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all."

Sad when Americans view of their own country changes when their guy isn't in the White House. There have been plenty of administrations that I had a major distaste for, but that didn't stop how I felt towards America. I do what I can to support America no matter what. This is my country, no matter what. Call it blind patriotism, but I agree with Miller's statement above.

The country changes when the leaders change and so you must reevaluate your leaders to find out where your freedom is going.

At least that's a young American's POV.

[Zeitgeist]

It may be because im not american, but i allways found patriotism to be a weird thing, how can you be proud of a whole country? I like my country, like my language and like living here but we arent better than anyone else, we dont have a statement that defines us, we merely have a bunch of things in common.
How can i be proud of a piece of land? proud of people i dont like? proud of people who arent good? If someone is "good" i couldnt care less what country they came from, if a person is "bad" i wont like them no matter where they live.
My flag is just a piece of cloth, if someone wants to put more value into that, thats their choice, but i couldnt care less if you want to burn it, ill just think youre wasting money.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Be proud of what you do, not of what you are.

[enjonze]

I still don't really know where Miller stands. Is he a big right winger, damning all who don't fall in line with President Bush, or is it really just about the flag and a sense of unity for the country? I wonder if he renounces his previous work, like Martha Washington, or if it still fits in to his logic in some way.

It's *IS* possbile to write characters that don't represent your politicial viewpoints. That's why it's called fiction.

[NeoSamurai]

Thought I should post this for informative purposes since people seem to be using Nationalism and Patriotism as interchangeable. They are similiar concepts but there is a distinction.

Patriotism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism

Nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

[Samuel_Z]

He's a cryptic fellow with a mixed relationship with America's iconography (not news for anyone who's read his Daredevil). His words offer some Freudian clues for those of us curious about arguably the greatest comics auteur of our time, but there's something barren about the essay, in my opinion. The flatness of it, the cold, simple declarations, are characteristic, but the way they're stitched together is odd. His message, which seems to be "I've converted to being a sentimental patriot," invites no response other than "Oh. Okay."
/Rather like this message.

[NeoSamurai]

His message, which seems to be "I've converted to being a sentimental patriot," invites no response other than "Oh. Okay."
/Rather like this message.

Well, he is working on Batman vs. Al Qaeda--that may have something to do with it. Though his essay is more of a declaration than a prompt to discuss with him. It's what he believes (now) needs to occur.

Though I do see your point about his statement being flat, though I should argue that most of our exposure to Miller is controversy or over the top fiction.

[Corwin]

stvnhthr beligerently mumbled
"I love when a liberal wakes up."

Another lemming speaks.

This is a typical response from one of John Dean's 25%.

25% of this country are perfectly willing to let their protector, Dubya (who puts the Duh in Dubya) drive us over an economic, domestic and international cliff because they are simple-minded lemmings who NEED someone to tell them what to think. No independant thought required...and guess what...it is purely a conservative trait

Difference is, liberals are CAPABLE of changing their mind in the face of imperical evidence and reason. Conservative are not...they are lemmings who care about nothing but their precious motherland, which they love like a three year-old loves it's mommy.

Conservatives just salute from their chest, goose-step and allow incompetent wastes of humanity like THE CHIMP to surrender their civil rights at the drop of a hat.

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither -Thomas Jefferson

In other words, you like this war so much...sign up, go there and fight it yourself (They're so desperate for cannon fodder, men of 42 are now eligible for enlistment), or shut up.

In light of the approval of this war and president, you're so much in the minority it isn't even funny...and YOUR president, your fuhrer, is going down.

Corwin

[Vallick]

he doesnt stand on either side. He's just a crazy old man, I see that more and more the older I get.

[PyD]

Nice speech by Frank. Kind of cool to see him do a whole 180 degree turn from his thoughts he presented in that 9/11 comic which was a slap in the face to all those who love our country. I love when a liberal wakes up.

Yes cause no one with any liberal opinions understands that freedoms are things that must be protected and are actually easily threatened - which is pretty much what the piece was describing a realisation about albeit in a very sentimental fashion.

Stop being silly.
Naughty troll.

[MadBandit]

It was beautiful and refreshingly honest, unlike the flag-waving phonies who are more than willing to give their civil liberties to be safe.

Nice work, Frank. Can't wait for Batman: Holy Terror (or can I...just kidding!!!).:cool:

[smitch]

Just because they don't see it the same way, that doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in mankind has a whole. That should be exactly what separates us from opressors and fundamentalists. So yeah, patriotism is still worthless and a nuisance (and I say this as someone who comes from Portugal). It creates physical and mental borders. And nationalism is what nazis were all about.

And the Romans, and the ancient Chinese, Japanese, and on and on and on. Nationalism is not a bad thing, patriotism is not a bad thing. You can sing 'We are the world, we are the children" until you're blue in the face, but "believing in mankind as a whole" is not going to some day bring us together as a planet. You can try, but I'm just being realistic. I say again, Mankind will never live in peace of our own volition. This is reality. You can say 'well that's because of people like you' and maybe your right. But there will always be people like me, and worse - people like the Nazi's, the Islamofascits, etc. We can believe in a day when the wars will end, but it requires a faith in something higher than humanity. Someone higher than humanity.

[8thSamurai]

I guess I missed the memo, but when did it become “controversial” to love being an American? Good job Frank.
Well he has many times written Superman as a total douche government puppet because of his love for America.

[NeoSamurai]

Well he has many times written Superman as a total douche government puppet because of his love for America.

And if you read the interviews, Miller loves Superman as a character. Look at the subtext of that portrayal. Superman represents the American Way. In DKR, that can suggest that the American Way has been corrupted by partisan politics. In DKSA, Superman becomes better. He realizes the folly of his ways. He receives a wake-up call and returns to his iconic symbolism.

So, cursorily--yeah Miller doesn't like America ideology because he dicked over superman. In closer examination, there might be more to it.

[HG_studios]

Someone higher than humanity.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?

The only way to step up as a whole, is to think as a whole. We need to focus on Humanity's interests, not concentrate on dividing us further. Patriotism is all well and good, depending on what your patriotic about, and what purposes it actually serves. A bunch of flag-waving, terrorist-hating mindless drones should not be indicative of the kind of country we are and strive to be. If we truly want to further the world and people as a whole, then we need to stop isolated ourselves from those we SHARE this planet with.

And yes, I realize it is much more complicated than that...mostly because no one wants to let go of tradition and cultural inhibitions. People have convinced themselves that THEIR people have gotten it all right, and that to defend these people and ideas is the way to go, as opposed to accepting that NO ONE has gotten it right yet...and we should all be trying to figure out what IS right, TOGETHER.

[Tyler Smith]

I don't think wars will end when people suddenly find religion...I think wars will end when people get away from religion.

Fundamentalism is the problem, here. Islamic fundamentalists are stuck in the past, and Christian fundamentalists are trying to make America stuck in the past. "Islamofascist" is a neocon catchphrase that's meant to make a very complex situation look simplistic. They say that if we fight Islamofascists in Iraq, it'll hurt the Islamofascists...except we're actually empowering a radicalized Shia population, who will probably team up with Iran, someday. But much of America is still stuck in a black-and-white mindset that even comics have rejected.

[shadow-ray]

OK, i read the essay, and agree completely with Miller.

Kudos.

Now, as for the entire thread, well it's pretty civil in natrue, but one thing stood out (fine maybe it's the day), but I'm so offened by this, and I would think others are too.

original post by Corwin
In light of the approval of this war and president, you're so much in the minority it isn't even funny...and YOUR president, your fuhrer, is going down.

Boy, I hope you're not an American. If you are, you should be ashamed by even equating the President to Hitler.
I support him. I may not agree with everything he does or his policies, but I would never stoop to the level to call him something like that. So, since I agree with him, does that make me a SS?

[samfish]

Every person evolves in a different way. If I recall, Goldwater was a staunch conservative who "lightened up" towards the end of his life.

Miller's always seemed like a libertarian to me.

Goldwater didn't "lighten up" or go left.
The Republican party went WAY off to the right around the 1980's or so. Goldwater largely stayed right where he was.
Goldwater believed that abortion should be legal, in the right to privacy and healthcare and a lot of other things that are now associated with "liberals" in America.
He was a principaled conservative. Those guys are all but dead in America, like the communist left.

Kinda sad that if he were still alive, he'd be considered a leftist traitor by Hannity and his blood drinking followers.

Still, I'd love a chance to vote for a principaled guy like Goldwater or Eisenhower today...but that'll never happen and the Repuglican party will never get my vote so long as these Christian fascits are running the show.

[Mr. Roboto]

I'm not sure what to make of this other than: 1) Frank Miller hates hippies; 2) his initial politics were formed as the result of a knee-jerk, adolescent rebellion against his parents' hard fought ideals and beliefs; and 3) for an artist, he really doesn't know how to say what he really means.

Miller's thesis seems to be encapsulated in this one sentence: "Patriotism, I now believe, isn't some sentimental, old conceit. It's self-preservation."

If that's all that "patriotism" means to Miller than this suggests that he may willing to sacrifice some or all of his civil liberties to be safe from terrorism. I would have rather he addressed the cost of patriotism and the balance between security and liberty, which is the real debate going on in this country.

Remember liberty, i.e., freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control? That is what we must fight to preserve. Liberty. Not patriotism.

Did Miller get to choose the subject matter, I wonder? It would seem more appropriate for him to have chosen a subject like the first amendment freedom of expression/speech and how that right may be limited if the Congress passes a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution. I wonder what his idols, Madison, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson would have to say about that.

This I believe.

Robert W. Grzech

[Lonewolf]

Nice to see I'm not alone in my "What the hell is he actually saying" feeling.

I read it again and I'm really struggling.

Also I find myself slightly offended at calling it an essay. Jeez, I mean, I wrote longer more structurally sound essays than that in high school. This is a man who writes for a living, I would have thought he could produce something a little better.

Man, it's not terrible, but it's pointless. Seems to me he was offered an awesome platform to say something and just totally buckled under the pressure. It's a shame really, because he's about as interesting a character as comics has these days.

I'm one of the people who thinks 'Holy Terror Batman' is going to be the ultimate in car crash comics and I'll be waiting to buy a copy the day it arrives, Millers a legend, sure he's not been up to scratch as of late, but what the hell, it's Frank Miller.

Should have been so much more...

[Cientista]

Nationalism is not a bad thing, patriotism is not a bad thing. You can sing 'We are the world, we are the children" until you're blue in the face, but "believing in mankind as a whole" is not going to some day bring us together as a planet.

The way I see it, either you're willing to see other people as human beings rather than foreigners or not. To artificially divide people like that will always bring problems - whether the division is nationality, religion, race, sexual preference, whatever. The Us VS Them mentality crumbles before our social and philosophical achievements and so must be regarded as a dead-end. This is hardly an issue concerning the human condition, it's a morals and customs one, so there's no reason for you to assume that it will always be like this.
And I don't understand that last bit. What, are you talking about God? I'm sorry, but I don't expect deities to come and solve issues that affect me. I solve them for myself.

[tjwsports]

I dont understand it.

What's his point? Does he make one? :confused:


His point is that the U.S. flag is a symbol of our freedom and that while living through an era that was relatively secure in our homeland he did not make the connection that our freedom as a nation is as perishable as a piece of cloth. It took the acts of terrorism on Sept. 11th, 2001 for him to fully realize that while the ideals of freedom and liberty are indestructible, in actuality not only our freedom but our lives as Americans can be taken from us.

The attack on Pear Harbor left a similar impression on his parents' generation that he did not fully understand until dealing with a similar disaster on a personal level.


I think it was a fine nonpartisan but absolutely patriotic essay.

[AuH20]

Goldwater didn't "lighten up" or go left.
The Republican party went WAY off to the right around the 1980's or so. Goldwater largely stayed right where he was.
Goldwater believed that abortion should be legal, in the right to privacy and healthcare and a lot of other things that are now associated with "liberals" in America.
He was a principaled conservative. Those guys are all but dead in America, like the communist left.

Kinda sad that if he were still alive, he'd be considered a leftist traitor by Hannity and his blood drinking followers.

Still, I'd love a chance to vote for a principaled guy like Goldwater or Eisenhower today...but that'll never happen and the Repuglican party will never get my vote so long as these Christian fascits are running the show.
With all due respect, I do not believe that your perspective on history matches the public record. Until his last term in the Senate, Barry Goldwater supported a constitutional ban on abortion. Goldwater's presence ushered in the political prominence of devout social conservatives, as he declared in '64, "It is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions" -- among <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWRiYmY2YTg1OTJkZjdlNDk5ZDFjODg3NDRiY mE4NWM=">other</a> statements that sound eerily similar to those statements on morality that causes modern leftists to accuse George W. Bush of being a religious fanatic.

"The Republican party went WAY off to the right around the 1980's or so."

That's simply not true: let us not forget that Reagan came to the forefront of national politics in part because of his support of Goldwater in '64 -- support that led to his famous speech, <a href="http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/reaganatimeforchoosing.htm">A Time for Choosing.</a> In the 1980's Reagan campaigned much as Goldwater did, and as President he governed much as Goldwater probably would have governed.

If anything, the Bush administration has drifted left on fiscal issues, but -- whether you like their positions or not -- one should have both the courage and the knowledge to accept that modern American conservatism is built on the shoulders of Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan, <b>and that the positions of those three men have been fairly easily reconciled.</b>

[twincast]

Oh~ Kay~
so what exactly was the point of his little essay? I don't see one aside from "I never cared about the flag. Now I do."


The American Flag, like any symbol, reflects the values of those associated with it - it's imperative upon each of us to live up to our ideals so that our symbols will have positive meaning in the future for our progeny and those of other nations - otherwise Old Glory may become relegated the scrapheap of symbols that include the Nazi swastika and the Soviet hammer and sickle.since you mention it, that's actually a pet peeve of mine. One of the oldest symbols of humanity, used by hundreds, mabye thousands of Western firms, organisations and even military up to World War II and now everyone outside Asia gets all paranoic when they see one (e.g. discover them on old walls like it actually happened in the US at least once), vastly helping its further abuse by neonazis.
In Germany (and Austria) it's even forbidden to show it outside of documentaries, news and history books, even when you fight against them (e.g. Return to Castle Wolfenstein and probably some US modern comics, not to mention the WW2 ones) or it's got a totally different meaning (e.g. several manga characters, most notably Neji from Naruto, and a bunch of religions that are more or less focused on it. even affects the version spinning the other way round) and yet they absolutely failed at outlawing neonazis. It's ridiculous.


and to the one who called Bush a Führer:
a bit immature much, aren't we? He's an incapable phony bastard with serious lack of synaptic connections who cares more about a private vendetta and his buddys' wealth than about America's real problems (or real enemies) and I despise him, his fellow neocons, greedy speculators and every religious fascist around the world as much as any sane being, but he's no Hittler-level mass murderer - definitely not on the outside and most likely not on the inside, either.
Besides, you have to remember that at least since America's rise to power due to the World Wars (and the Cold War) pretty much every US president has had some acts against human rights on their conscience ("South America" should say it all.), although Dubya's definitely among the worst three (all Republican, by the way), quite probably holding the "gold medal".

[jmyoung]

With all due respect, I do not believe that your perspective on history matches the public record. Until his last term in the Senate, Barry Goldwater supported a constitutional ban on abortion. Goldwater's presence ushered in the political prominence of devout social conservatives, as he declared in '64, "It is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions" -- among <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWRiYmY2YTg1OTJkZjdlNDk5ZDFjODg3NDRiY mE4NWM=">other</a> statements that sound eerily similar to those statements on morality that causes modern leftists to accuse George W. Bush of being a religious fanatic.

"The Republican party went WAY off to the right around the 1980's or so."

That's simply not true:

Actually, it is true and I do not think you will find many who argue otherwise. Goldwater's opinions would be considered middle of the road nowadays.

I am not sure that it is fair to say that the Reoublicans went way off to the right in the 80s (although, Reagan's courting of the Christian base certainly increased the pull to the right.) However, the GOP has steadily slid more and more to the right since the 60s, and the Dems have just followed right along.

[Augusto]

I was pretty nauseated by it, jingoistic tripe that was incredibly unsettling in this era of globalization.

Brownie Elf,
not an American citizen, but a WORLD CITIZEN!

And damn proud of it.

I used to believe in this "World Citizen" junk, until my own country and it's government turned against my friends, my family and myself.

The US welcomed me with open arms, and adopted me, and I have no shame to say that I'm a proud adopted son of the US of A.

That doesn't mean that I ignore the world, or that I don't care what happens in another country. Not at all, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't recognize the beauty of this country with all it's imperfections, and appreciate it.

[phismi]

Nicely done. I thought the piece to be relatively humble and thoughtful. Nice to hear someone talk about patriotism without resorting to name-calling and red state/blue state nonsense.

[nickmarino]

"It was all about the ideas. I schooled myself in the writings of Madison and Franklin and Adams and Jefferson. I came to love those noble, indestructible ideas. They were ideas, to my young mind, of rebellion and independence, not of idolatry."

Anyone else find it odd that we always applaud the founding fathers for their "noble" concepts of "rebellion" yet rarely do we chastise them for being slave owners that aided in the uprooting of unwilling african people, and the proponents of policies that killed and stripped the land from native americans? i believe if we can recognize their triumphs we should be just as willing to concede their oppresive flaws.

[Neuromancer]

I love all the newly registered users in here. :D

[S-Prime]

And if you read the interviews, Miller loves Superman as a character. Look at the subtext of that portrayal.


Hmm. The old fart's got a funny way of showing his love of Superman.:rolleyes:

[JamesLM2006]

"If anything, the Bush administration has drifted left on fiscal issues"

This is the most inexplicable thing I have ever read.


In the essay, Miller affirms his belief in his parents values-his FDR loving parent's values. I'm not sure those on the right are quite getting the intent.


The essay is a bit vague. These post 9/11 conversions always seem a bit specious. Suddenly he discovered there were nefarious characters in the world? This after Oklahoma City? After genocide in Darfur? Where has Miller been? And here's what I find objectionable. His appropriation of the 9/11 tragedy to affirm something contrary to the true spirit of the day. Many-MANY-of the people who died in the Twin Towers were NOT AMERICAN. The World Trade Center was targeted specifically because it was a symbol "of world commerce and world modernity. People from all over the WORLD worked in those towers. It wasn't just Americans who were killed. Bin Ladin hated what the Towers represented-a world moving into modernity and solidarity. That's why those buildings were chosen. It's not just the American flag that was targeted that day. In fact, it wasn't the flag at all. It was the idea that religious zealotry rooted in ancient prejudices is being displaced by a world interested in the FUTURE. In technology, commerce, capitalisim, and cooperation. Miller has completely missed the point.

I've always loved the flag. I love Veteran's parades. I love hearing "Stars and Stripes Forever'. I'm not a "born again" patriot. I also love the Constitution of the United States Of America-the document that our flag is meant to represent. And what I find increasingly to be true, is that guileful politicians are using "patriotisim" and panic to steer Americans into a path away from the Constitutional ideals upon which our country was based. The American ideal-the great American experiment-is being decimated under the guise of love of "flag, god, and country". Orange alerts replace the "land of the brave". Patriot Acts replace the "home of the free". This is not about left or right. Bush and his administration don't represent conservative values at all. They stand for a kind of self serving greed and gluttony that eschews conservativism and liberalisim alike.

You can see from this thread just how we have come together post 9/11. We have become a nation completely divided. We rail at each other over symbolisim, while our leaders burn the American dream and the constitutional ideals therein.

I can love the flag and STILL think critically. Questioning authority and patriotisim are NOT mutually exclusive. To the contrary-love of one's country DEMANDS critical thinking. We should always hold our leaders accountable. We should always demand the truth. When we are lied to, we should rally to roust the scoundrels from their perches. Loving America requires a passion for freedom. Not acquiescance and accomodation.

Republican or Democrat. Independent, Libertarian. If you want to honor the fallen of 9/11 REMEMBER-they were born under MANY flags.

[AuH20]

jmyoung, on the question of whether ""The Republican party went WAY off to the right around the 1980's or so," I wrote that the assertion wasn't true.

You responded, "Actually, it is true and I do not think you will find many who argue otherwise," only to contradict yourself immediately by writing, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that the Reoublicans went way off to the right in the 80s."

Which is it? Are you one of the few people who argue otherwise?


"If anything, the Bush administration has drifted left on fiscal issues"

This is the most inexplicably ridiculous thing I've ever read.
The prescription drug bill; massive spending increases; Bush's inability to veto pork (or anything, for that matter); and Bush's loathsome phrase of "compassionate conservatism" that advocates that, when people are hurting, government always has a responsibility to act.

Fiscally, that is a shift leftward from the limited-government ideals of Goldwater and Reagan.

[revenire]

I think Miller is full of it. I like his comic work but his politics stink.

As far as calling Bush a new Hitler: Bush is too stupid, too looney, to come close to Hitler levels. Bush could get off of war crimes by pleading insanity.

[Ogmios22188]

I liked his essay. If anything I hope this demonstrated that he isn't just a blind, Bush-following moron as some people have said he is. He loves this country. There's nothing wrong with that. If anything, I think his past work, such as in the Dark Knight Returns, shows that he's above Democrats and Republicans, as he lampoons both parties and ideologies in that series. He has his own opinions and isn't drinking any kool-aid as far as I can see. I don't think there's anything wrong about loving your country.

[Mr. Roboto]

Frank Miller "phoned in" that essay, just like he's "phoned in" All-Star Batman and Robin. 'Nuff said.

[AuH20]

Frank Miller "phoned in" that essay, just like he's "phoned in" All-Star Batman and Robin. 'Nuff said.
At least he phoned it in on time. :cool:

[IronWolf]

I would love to talk to frank miller but oh well. I understand where he is comming from but i guess some times i have a problem with people who are such rebels when the times are good and then something happends and its "Protect me!" it feels like what ever they say when they feel safe. will be left in the dust once the going gets hard. I am a America Loving Liberal, i love what this country stands for, Liberty Justice,Freedom use any one you want to i belive in the american ideal. 9/11 was a horror i cried that day, i cried today just being reminded of that day, but i felt good knowing that no matter what that coward Bin Laden set in motion that say he could not shake my belife in this country. my in equality and fareness, in freedom and love. America Kicks ass I know i didn't need terror to make me see it if frank did so be it just as long as all the things he loved all that he stood for didn't get thrown underbus because of fear, what fun would it be seing batman if he gave up is crusade for good if something happend that shook him to his core? not good at all. i'm ranting..i don't know.

[Noam Choseed]

I still don't really know where Miller stands. Is he a big right winger, damning all who don't fall in line with President Bush, or is it really just about the flag and a sense of unity for the country? I wonder if he renounces his previous work, like Martha Washington, or if it still fits in to his logic in some way.


It's possible to be a patriot and not blindly embrace the current administration's dangerous policies. It is possible to love your country and the flag and feel that your leader's ideology and your ideals do not have to be the same. You may in fact be considerd patriotic for standing against your government if they seem wrong to you.:eek: :mad: :confused: Ask those rebellious Founding Fathers:cool: :cool: :cool:

[AuH20]

Noam, the Founding Fathers were patriotic Americans, but hardly patriotic Englishmen.

It has been said, wrongly, that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Some forms of dissent are indeed compatible with patriotism, but not all.

After all, the most extreme form of dissent is treason.


Are some of Bush's strongest opponents opposed to his policies because they genuinely have the country's best interests at heart? Surely.

Are all of them?

Are there not people who oppose the administration for purely partisan reasons? Are there not people who are ultimately not interested in the defense of this country, or are at least willing to sacrifice national security for other, lesser ends? And are there not people who truly believe that the United States is and ought to be a diminishing power on the world stage?

In what sense are these people patriots? And if some people can challenge not only the intelligence but also the morality of the administration and its supporters, just why in the world can no one dare question the patriotism of these people?


As Jonah Goldberg <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072602.asp">noted</a> a few years back, "in American politics you can flagrantly indict someone's racial tolerance, their love of children, their charity, and so forth — Democrats do it all the time to Republicans — but if you 'question' someone's patriotism you're an ogre, a bully, an (always ill-defined) 'McCarthyite.'

"Questioning an opponent's patriotism isn't necessarily nice or appropriate, but I don't know why it's any worse than Jesse Jackson suggesting Republicans are Nazis or Ralph Nader categorically asserting that businessmen are greedy."

[stingray]

Always loved what the man has done or said. But Great Cesears Ghost what was he saying? I must agree with others here that I was looking for something a little more... well, intelligent. I read some of the other essays on the site and honestly Franks seemed one of, it not, the weakest. Don't want to offend? Don't write anything. Just did not feel heart felt. And when does patriotism get boiled down to just keeping our backs together in a crisis? It has to be there in good times and bad. I hate our president. BIG TIME. But I believe in US, the PEOPLE. Not as individuals, but as a collective whole. Bush is an individual who is lining his pockets with profits from the dead. But soon he'll be gone and we'll have someone else, They may be better or not. It is up to us to learn from what has happened. We must look beyond what people say whether it is to comfort us or scare us. They all have alterior motives.

[Nat Gertler]

After all, the most extreme form of dissent is treason.No,it's not. Dissentis merely disagreement or the statement thereof. True, someone may commit treason for reasons of dissent... or for other reasons. However, the fact that someone may kill another to get their Big Mac does not mean that murder is a form of hunger.Are there not people who are ultimately not interested in the defense of this country, or are at least willing to sacrifice national security for other, lesser ends?You mean like that anti-patriotic guy who said "they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"?And are there not people who truly believe that the United States is and ought to be a diminishing power on the world stage? In what sense are these people patriots?Those people may well feel that a less-powerful United States would be for its own good, or would be best for the ideals that they believe America is supposed to represent. While the US has done some good with its power on the world stage, that has certainly not been without exception. The fact that I do not believe that my daughter should have everything she wants the moment she wants it does not mean that I don't love her.
And if some people can challenge not only the intelligence but also the morality of the administration and its supporters, just why in the world can no one dare question the patriotism of these people?They can, but they are usually found to be quite wanting when the only support they have for claiming lack of patriotism is lack of support for the given administration.
America is designed unlike most of the governments which came before it - built from the beginning with an eye for the government serving the people, rather than the people serving the government or sovereign. This system works only if the people let their desires be known.
"Questioning an opponent's patriotism isn't necessarily nice or appropriate, but I don't know why it's any worse than Jesse Jackson suggesting Republicans are Nazis or Ralph Nader categorically asserting that businessmen are greedy."Because in general, the questioning of patriotism is not only a stance against who your questioning, it's a stance placing the government of the United States ahead of the people it is supposed to serve.

[LoneStarFinn]

After all the arguments and name calling and statistic shouting from when this is first announced, I must say that I was very fond of his piece and what he had to say. I don't see anything wrong with his essay, though I'm sure some will. But personally, he pretty much said how I've felt about the whole thing. I love my country, "warts and all."

[grendel824]

I still don't really know where Miller stands. Is he a big right winger, damning all who don't fall in line with President Bush, or is it really just about the flag and a sense of unity for the country? I wonder if he renounces his previous work, like Martha Washington, or if it still fits in to his logic in some way.

I'd say he's the kind of person who gets attacked from all sides on the Internet - the kind of person who thinks for himself.

[grendel824]

You mean like that anti-patriotic guy who said "they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"?

I love how that quote is always, always misused, as though the people smarmily (not necessarily the guy I'm quoting, by the way - not attacking him) throwing it out there didn't understand the context. Of course, even the person he's quoting was in favor of giving up some liberty for safety - otherwise he'd be an anarchist, opposed to all laws (after all, even just saying you're not allowed to murder people infringes upon liberty for safety), and he most certainly wasn't.

[AuH20]

Nat, it's likely you and I agree on far more than we disagree, but let me focus very quickly on where we disagree.

- I <i>do</i> think that treason is the most extreme form of dissent, assuming that dissent is not merely holding an opinion but letting that opinion inform one's words and actions. If distributing an article against a government or voting for a challenger to the incumbent are forms of dissent, so too are other actions -- including, <i>in the extreme case,</i> actions that qualify as treasonous.

- I think those who invoke Benjamin Franklin's "essential liberty" quote ought to explain what <b>essential</b> liberties have been lost in the last five years.

- I also think that Franklin does not qualify as an actual critic of this particular adminstration -- a patriotic critic or otherwise -- because he's been dead for about 200 years. I've asserted that some of Bush's critics are probably not patriotic, and a long-dead corpse is the best counter-example to that assertion?

- Those who think that American ideals would be best served by a weaker America may well be patriotic, but if they believe that in good faith, they're also idiots who fail to recognize that American influence doesn't exist in a vaccuum. If America's sphere of influence shrinks, the spheres of nations like China and Iran grow; how the causes political, economic, and religious liberty are served by such growth eludes me.

- I don't think mere opposition to the Bush Administration is the only reason to question a few people's patriotism; some (admittedly few) apparently desire our military defeat at the hands of terrorists and some advocate opposing the administration in ways that (let me put this nicely) are at odds with the Constitutional mechanisms with which the people express their political desires.

- Finally, you write, "Because in general, the questioning of patriotism is not only a stance against who your questioning, it's a stance placing the government of the United States ahead of the people it is supposed to serve." That's not necessarily true.

You yourself earlier wrote, "America is designed unlike most of the governments which came before it - built from the beginning with an eye for the government serving the people, rather than the people serving the government or sovereign."

Well, if that's true (and I believe it is), and if someone opposes this system in which power flows from the people -- by, say, supporting either a presidency <i>or a judiciary</i> that oversteps its constitutional bounds -- then defending that system is a way in which one protects the rights of the people it serves.


Ultimately, patriotism's morality is a function of the morality of the nation that is being defended. If a nation is wicked, loyalty to that nation is not a good thing. So, saying whether Mr. Smith is patriotic isn't necessarily questioning his morality.

At any rate, I don't see the problem of describing a person as unpatriotic if his behavior indicates that, indeed, he is not loyal to his country. Does it not matter that, in that case, the label of "unpatriotic" is probably accurate?

It's not out of bounds to infer from a person's behavior that he's a racist, why is it so wrong to infer from other sets of behavior that he's unpatriotic and to say as much?

[Yardbird]

I really dug the essay. I think it is thoughtful and very insightful into the mind of one of the best writers in comics. It shows that yes, with age your perspective does change, as it does for those of us who choose to evolve and be open to new ideas and also it's refreshing to see someone in comics show some unabashed love of country in a time of real divisivness. Also I am incredibly proud to have Frank representing the comic industry to the NPR masses, who probably enmasse don't read comics. Welcome home Frank, and well done.

Yb

[Nat Gertler]

I <i>do</i> think that treason is the most extreme form of dissent, assuming that dissent is not merely holding an opinion but letting that opinion inform one's words and actions.Except that you can commit treason without having a position of disagreement. One can do it merely for the money, for example. The redefining of "dissent" in order to include treason seems like merely a rhetorical effort to cast a more negative light on dissent.
- I think those who invoke Benjamin Franklin's "essential liberty" quote ought to explain what <b>essential</b> liberties have been lost in the last five years.Given that you evoked "lesser ends" that people have been willing to sacrifice national security for, without indicating what these actualy "lesser ends" are, I don't see the need to jump through that hoop.
I've asserted that some of Bush's critics are probably not patriotic, and a long-dead corpse is the best counter-example to that assertion?You've made some rather vague claims without identification. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to disprove that there aren't Bush critics who aren't patriotic toward America out there - it would seem rather silly, since we can likely count Osama and Saddam as Bush critics. However, when you trot out the question of national security against unnamed "lesser ends", it's good for someone to bring up that an end isn't lesser just because it isn't security. And Ben's a good man to do it.

Those who think that American ideals would be best served by a weaker America may well be patriotic, but if they believe that in good faith, they're also idiots who fail to recognize that American influence doesn't exist in a vaccuum. If America's sphere of influence shrinks, the spheres of nations like China and Iran grow; how the causes political, economic, and religious liberty are served by such growth eludes me.Perhaps they're not the idiots that you assume them to be. Perhaps they are smart enough to realize that one of the reasons that Iran's influence is so hostile to America is that America used its strength to empower a harsh regime there for decades. There have been a number of times where America has been harmed by its own strength, like a man who throws a ball hard against its wall and is knocked over when it bounces back at him.Finally, you write, "Because in general, the questioning of patriotism is not only a stance against who your questioning, it's a stance placing the government of the United States ahead of the people it is supposed to serve." That's not necessarily true.It's said "in general", which means it can be true or untrue in an individual instance.Well, if that's true (and I believe it is), and if someone opposes this system in which power flows from the people -- by, say, supporting either a presidency <i>or a judiciary</i> that oversteps its constitutional bounds -- then defending that system is a way in which one protects the rights of the people it serves.Except that that system is not perfect; I reckon you'd have a hard time finding folks of reasonable intelligence and consideration of the topic who don't agree with that (although they will radically disagree on what parts are just fine and what need work). To oppose aspects of the system as it is implemented is not the same as opposing the goal, and to act as though it is places the value of the government above that of serving the people.So, saying whether Mr. Smith is patriotic isn't necessarily questioning his morality.It is at the very least quite uncommon for a claim of lack of patriotism to be used against one's fellow countryman except in a derogatory manner. If he's standing for a better set of morals, he is probably better described as standing for those morals.At any rate, I don't see the problem of describing a person as unpatriotic if his behavior indicates that, indeed, he is not loyal to his country. Does it not matter that, in that case, the label of "unpatriotic" is probably accurate?One could say that about any sort of ethnic slur; if the person in question is of the ethicity indicated, is it really a slur? Of course it is. And with ethnicity, the definition of who is included is generally much clearer (and thus less prone to abuse) than the stance of patriotism.

[AuH20]

Nat, calling a person unpatriotic is not analogous to using an ethnic slur against him; I hope that I'm not the only one who sees just how strained an analogy that is.

If Bill Clinton were unfaithful to his wife (and he has been) and his behavior indicated unfaithfulness (e.g., in being serviced by an intern), it is not an outrage to call him adulterous. (Same for Guiliani and Gingrich, if you think I'm being partisan.)

Likewise, if a person is unfaithful to his country and his behavior indicated unfaithfulness, it is not an outrage to call him unpatriotic.

I'm suspicious of those who balk at the use of the label of "adulterer" as an accurate description of a man who is unfaithful to his wife; it makes me inclined to believe they want to give people a certain amount of cover for acts that make the label accurate.

Want to be an adulterous and get away with it? Drive the stigmatizing label of "adulterer" from the public square. Why is it some on the left want to drive the label of "unpatriotic" from civil discussion?


Can one commit treason for mercenary reasons like profit? Sure. One can also marry for the mercenary reason of money. Nevertheless, it remains true that marriage is the proper culmination of romantic love, and it remains true that treason is a singularly extreme expression of dissent. The existence of other causes for both marriage and treason changes none of this.


I'll give you one "lesser end" for which some people oppose Bush's policies: I believe some politicians oppose Bush's policies to appeal to the lunatic fringe of their political base within their party, regardless of the effectiveness of those policies.

Care to provide even one essential liberty we've lost in the last five years?

You write, "when you trot out the question of national security against unnamed 'lesser ends', it's good for someone to bring up that an end isn't lesser just because it isn't security. And Ben's a good man to do it."

That makes the rather audacious presumption that a policy of the Bush Administration actually does (or at least plausibly does) threaten an essential liberty -- either that, or it's a well-worn red herring.

You want to suggest that people opposed Bush's policies to protect an essential liberty? Fine: name the liberty.


You write that those who I think are idiots may be "smart enough to realize that one of the reasons that Iran's influence is so hostile to America is that America used its strength to empower a harsh regime there for decades. There have been a number of times where America has been harmed by its own strength, like a man who throws a ball hard against its wall and is knocked over when it bounces back at him."

Even assuming all this is an accurate interpretation of history -- and ignoring the fact that the Iranians who are so hostile to us replaced our harsh regime with one that was arguably even more severe -- this all ignores the question, what happens if our current strength and influence diminish?

Will we as a nation be safer, despite the examples like Somalia that demonstrate that weakness emboldens our enemies? Those who actually believe so really are morons in the face of human history and human nature.

Even if it's true (which I doubt), the idea that we are responsible for the creation of all our enemies does not logically lead to the conclusion that disarming and then prostrating ourselves before them will make them go away.

Whether we created them or not, our enemies exist. Being weaker than we are now will not make us safer and therefore cannot be for our own good; given the brutal, authoritarian nature of our enemies, our weakness will not advance our principles.

Those who do not understand this <i>are</i> idiots. Those who do understand and yet desire our diminishing as a world power and thus our defeat at the hands of our enemies <i>are</i> guilty of holding beliefs that betray not only our nation but also Western civilization itself and the freedoms it protects.

Those who believe we deserve defeat and welcome it deserve to be hanged -- or deserve to live out their lives as defeated dhimmis under a regime which denies altogether the existence of any essential liberties.

[Nat Gertler]

Nat, calling a person unpatriotic is not analogous to using an ethnic slur against him; A religious slur, if you prefer, as it is generally used to conote that someone's set of political beliefs don't match with the speaker's political beliefs. unfaithfulness, it is not an outrage to call him unpatriotic.[/QUOTE]If we find that a senator is secretly a senator for another country that he prefers, you might have a point. However, the political use of "unpatriotic" tends to be based on a definition of "patriotism" that is convenient to the speaker at the moment.
Why is it some on the left want to drive the label of "unpatriotic" from civil discussion?Because it is not generally used as an element of civil discussion. It's used as an attempt to demonize based on beliefs that can easily be much more accurately described.Nevertheless, it remains true that marriage is the proper culmination of romantic love,It remains your opinion, perhaps; that seems quite a controversial one in a world where many are aggressively trying to prevent some romantic lovers from attaining marraige. and it remains true that treason is a singularly extreme expression of dissent.Ah, so it's not dissent. It's merely expression. And thus trying to paint someone as unpatriotic based on dissent by equating strong dissent to treason....
I'll give you one "lesser end" for which some people oppose Bush's policies: I believe some politicians oppose Bush's policies to appeal to the lunatic fringe of their political base within their party, regardless of the effectiveness of those policies.That wouldn't seem to be an end at all; even if true, that would seem to be a means to another end.
But please note that you've now slid the discussion of this point from sacrificing national security to opposing Bush policies, as if they are one and the same.
Care to provide even one essential liberty we've lost in the last five years?You may want to ask that of the folks whose right to privacy is stripped away by wiretaps without court order. Of the folks detained without access to lawyers and without charges. Or if you somehow could, you might want to ask that of an American soldier, held in the Army against his chosing by a stop-loss order, and then killed in Iraq (
http://www.iraniansca.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=30). Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what essential liberty he has not lost.

Those who actually believe so really are morons in the face of human history and human nature.Or they may understand that there is more to history than Somalia, whether it's our current imbroglio coming from trying to be strong rather than being smart, or whether it's the long history of strong nations that burned themselves out trying to expand across the world, thinning their resources.
Even if it's true (which I doubt), the idea that we are responsible for the creation of all our enemies does not logically lead to the conclusion that disarming and then prostrating ourselves before them will make them go away.But it might be wise not to generate new enemies in the future.
Those who do not understand this <i>are</i> idiots.So the people you do not understand and do not agree with are therefor idiots. Now why should we consider the use of "unpatriotic" to be any better considered, any more accurate, or any more civil?
Those who believe we deserve defeat and welcome it deserve to be hanged Ahhh, the side that feels that capital punishmentfor thoughtcrimes is justified. I don't suspect that the reasonable and civil among us will see that statement and consider you among their number.

[AuH20]

It's neither reasonable nor civil of you to take things I write out of context. You quote me thusly:
Those who believe we deserve defeat and welcome it deserve to be hanged
You didn't include a period that followed the word "hanged" because there was no period following that word, <b>because I hadn't finished the sentence.</b>

"Those who believe we deserve defeat and welcome it deserve to be hanged -- or deserve to live out their lives as defeated dhimmis under a regime which denies altogether the existence of any essential liberties."

<i>That</i> is the complete statement; the "or" and everything that follows isn't extraneous.

Let me be clear: I do not believe the government should prosecute (much less execute) people for their thoughts or words, even treasonous thoughts or words. If someone commits a treasonous <i>act</i>, however, the government should prosecute and seek the death penalty.

Nevertheless, I believe that those who welcome our defeat merit a hanging or a lifetime in the hands of those who would defeat us; the government should not give them what they deserve, but they deserve it just the same.


Briefly, on to other points.

It's not the case that someone's an idiot simply for disagreeing with me on any issue whatsoever. The pronouncement is limited to this issue: a person who genuinely believes that a weaker United States is a safer United States is not rowing with both oars in the water.


You seem to take issue with my writing, "treason is a singularly extreme expression of dissent," as if my use of the word "expression" is proof of my going wobbly.

"Treason is a singularly extreme dissent" is not a sentence that is grammatical, so I introduced the prepositional phrase "expression of dissent." I mean it to be interchangeable with "form of dissent."


And I fail to see how it's controversial to write that marriage is the proper culmination of romantic love, regardless of the controversies surrounding the attempt to redefine the legal definition of marriage.

We would apparently disagree on what qualifies as moral expressions of romantic love, but that disagreement is beside the point: what <i>else</i> would be the proper culmination of such love? A one-night stand? Mere cohabitation? A threesome?


Finally, about essential liberties being stripped away:
You may want to ask that of the folks whose right to privacy is stripped away by wiretaps without court order. Of the folks detained without access to lawyers and without charges. Or if you somehow could, you might want to ask that of an American soldier, held in the Army against his chosing by a stop-loss order, and then killed in Iraq. Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what essential liberty he has not lost.
Let me ask you:

On what basis do you assert that we all have an <b>essential</b> right to privacy when communicating with terrorist organizations over international phone lines?

On what basis do you assert that even terrorists who were caught outside this country, on the battlefield, and who are not American citizens have an <b>essential</b> right to the protections and process guaranteed by our nation's constitution to our nation's people?

And on what basis do you assert that stop-loss orders infringe upon an <b>essential</b> right when the U.S. has had full <i>drafts</i> for the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World Wars?

If these are the best examples of the police state that you apparently think Amerikkka has become, then I must wonder just what powers you believe the United States government legally possesses to defend its citizenry.

Really stern warnings, the removal of MFN status, and the refusal to invite an enemy nation's head of state to the Rose Garden? If we can't hold the enemy without trial, I guess we sure as hell can't kill him.

[Nat Gertler]

It's neither reasonable nor civil of you to take things I write out of context. Good to know, then, that I haven't. That I responded to a specific portion of your message, in the message that immediately followed your statement, where not only was it there for all to see, but where it was apt to be read immediately following your message.
<i>That</i> is the complete statement; the "or" and everything that follows isn't extraneous.Why, yes, you also put forth that those who don't agree with you on this matter deserve to be stripped of their essential liberties.It's not the case that someone's an idiot simply for disagreeing with me on any issue whatsoever. The pronouncement is limited to this issue: a person who genuinely believes that a weaker United States is a safer United States is not rowing with both oars in the water.And your expertise is? Really, you're coming across as rather ill-equipped to defend your views. Can we next expect the term "doody-heads" to be used for those who have considered the matter and come to different conclusions on this complex topic of international affairs?"Treason is a singularly extreme dissent" is not a sentence that is grammatical, so I introduced the prepositional phrase "expression of dissent." I mean it to be interchangeable with "form of dissent."I see. So you're back to trying to redefine the language in order to conflate dissent with treason?And I fail to see how it's controversial to write that marriage is the proper culmination of romantic love, regardless of the controversies surrounding the attempt to redefine the legal definition of marriage.Because even people who are willing to grant that homosexuals are capable of romantic love with each other don't see marriage as the proper culmination of that love.We would apparently disagree on what qualifies as moral expressions of romantic love, but that disagreement is beside the point: what <i>else</i> would be the proper culmination of such love? A one-night stand? Mere cohabitation? A threesome?Don't ask me - I've not taken the stand that marriage is not the proper culmination.
On what basis do you assert that we all have an <b>essential</b> right to privacy when communicating with terrorist organizations over international phone lines?I see no sign that that is the only wiretapping that's going on. That's what a system of checks is good for.On what basis do you assert that even terrorists who were caught outside this country, on the battlefield, and who are not American citizens have an <b>essential</b> right to the protections and process guaranteed by our nation's constitution to our nation's people?I'm sorry; have we switched from essential liberties to liberties valued only for Americans? I missed that point in the converation. But if we're talking about the effect that America has overseas, perhaps that we treat other people as though they don't deserve the presumption of liberty is part of the problem. And if you're of the belief that the only people we've been holding have been actual terrorists, then you haven't been paying attention.
And on what basis do you assert that stop-loss orders infringe upon an <b>essential</b> right when the U.S. has had full <i>drafts</i> for the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World Wars?We also had private slaves in this country. The fact that we have done something in the past does not automatically make it right.

If the government can force you to work for them and to give your life for it, how does that align with the value of the government serving the people rather than the other way around? Really, what "essential liberty" is left?

[AuH20]

Nat, let me ask, quite simply, how should the United States defend itself from terrorist organizations like al Queda?

You (apparently) believe that we should not spy on members of al Queda without a court order, that we should afford them every legal protection that is provided to every American citizen, and that our military should not ensure troop levels by either <i>ever</i> drafting civilians or even putting in place stop-loss orders for those who have already voluntarily joined.

Never mind the implication of your invoking Franklin's quote on such issues; never mind that your position leads quite logically to a belief that we should have lost WWII, since because we didn't have court orders to intercept German communiques, and because we interred prisoners of war without charges or trials, and because we had a large draft that resulted in the deaths of many who were drafted, invoking Franklin implies that you believe we deserved neither the liberty nor the security we were trying to protect.

Never mind all that: how would you have the United States protect itself?

Is national security -- are the lives of your fellow citizens -- not on the very bottom of your list of policy priorities? Okay, how does the priority of national security inform your policy positions? What the hell are your policy positions?

If you have none -- other than hamstringing both our ability to gather intelligence <i>and</i> our ability to wage war, in addition to granting those who want to destroy our political system the full measure of the very protections of that system -- then I hope you could understand why I for one doubt national security is a priority for you.

[Nat Gertler]

You (apparently) believe that we should not spy on members of al Queda without a court order,On communications where at least one end of it is in this country? Yes. And here's the answer that is so inobvious that it may elude you: get a court order. It's not like there's not a court there just for that purpose. For larger spying systems outside of this country, the executive should get at least some check, either a
and that our military should not ensure troop levels by either <i>ever</i> drafting civilians or even putting in place stop-loss orders for those who have already voluntarily joined.By chasing after the problem of the moment, you miss the larger picture. By treating our existing troops as folks to be press-ganged into fighting a war that was unneeded in the first place, we are discouraging those who would actually chose to serve to protect our country from volunteering for the military in the future.
never mind that your position leads quite logically to a belief that we should have lost WWIIWhy, that's very generous of you. Can I say that your position on the overwhelming need for global strength and the propriety of forcing people to work for the government leads quite logically to the United States joining the Soviet Union?
Never mind all that: how would you have the United States protect itself?With an appropriate and capable military, with intelligence, and with a system of checks and balances to keep control on the negative forces within.
Is national security -- are the lives of your fellow citizens -- not on the very bottom of your list of policy priorities?Gee, I'm the one coming out against forcing someone to stay in the military and lose their lives. You're the one apparently in favor of such actions, and who talks about how those who disagree with you deserve to be killed. Now which one of us is in favor or protecting the lives of our fellow citizens?

Me, I value liberty, and not just for me.

[AuH20]

An appropriate and capable military, intelligence, and a system of checks and balances: what a brilliant policy. Actually, no, that's not a policy but rather a framework in which one carries out a policy, a framework so vague (I might add) that it's hardly substantive.


The substance you do provide hardly answers my request for a policy that would ensure national security.

It's nice to say that opposing stop-loss orders saves the lives of American soldiers, but that ignores the reality that weakening an American military hardly protects American civilians. It's also nice to say that a military doesn't lose soldiers if it isn't used in wars that you believe are unnecessary, but that hardly answers how you would have the military be employed to ensure national security.

In the face of global terrorist organizations, of rogue states like Iran and Syria who offer them aid and comfort, and of rogue states like Iran and North Korea marching steadily to developing ever more dangerous weapons, your policy -- your <i>policy</i> -- is what? To do nothing militarily so that A) our soldiers aren't killed and B) stop-loss orders are not needed?

How in the world does that address the threat posed by groups like al Queda and states like Iran?

Let's say we have an appropriate and capable military, intelligence, and a system of checks and balances: is the mere existence of these things enough to address that threat? If not, what do you propose we do with those things?


As for the specifics re: intelligence, I would ask you to clarify a couple things:

1) If a CIA operative is monitoring a mid-level member of al Queda in his overseas hideout, and if said terrorist makes a phone call to the U.S., do you believe our agent should apply for <i>and wait for</i> a court order before determining who the terrorist called and what the terrorist said? If so, in the face of the possibility that the terrorist would be ordering an attack that might be immenent, how does such a delay on intelligence gathering make us safer?

2) Why are you <i>now</i> differentiating between communiques that involve at least one end in the U.S. and those that don't?

Do you not remember writing this to me yesterday?

<b>"I'm sorry; have we switched from essential liberties to liberties valued only for Americans? I missed that point in the converation. But if we're talking about the effect that America has overseas, perhaps that we treat other people as though they don't deserve the presumption of liberty is part of the problem."</b>

I don't see how a person who wrote this could justify court orders for surveillance of calls that involve domestic phone lines and mere oversight for those that don't.

[Nat Gertler]

The substance you do provide hardly answers my request for a policy that would ensure national security..Gee, I thought it would be too deep for you. How many thousands of pages do you expect.t's nice to say that opposing stop-loss orders saves the lives of American soldiers, but that ignores the reality that weakening an American military hardly protects American civilians.Sorry, no, haven't ignored anything. Have actually paid attention to how the exercise of stop-loss orders can have a long-term effect on recruitment and thus on American military strength.In the face of global terrorist organizations, of rogue states like Iran and Syria who offer them aid and comfort, and of rogue states like Iran and North Korea marching steadily to developing ever more dangerous weapons, your policy -- your <i>policy</i> -- is what?To keep a strong standing military prepared to repel attackers and retaliate as need be -- as opposed to wasting valuable manpower and dollars trying to keep someone from using weapons he doesn't actually have, at the cost of thousands of American lives and many many more thousands of foreign lives.Do you not remember writing this to me yesterday?Where in there do I express that the mechanism for respecting those beyond our borders is exercised in the exact same manner as those within our borders?I don't see how a person who wrote this could justify court orders for surveillance of calls that involve domestic phone lines and mere oversight for those that don'tThat would seem to be on a long list of things you seem unable to see. Perhaps if you spent a bit more time trying to understand the world and less deciding how people who disagree with you should be insulted and what punishment they deserve for holding beliefs contrary to yours, you might see more.

[AuH20]

I hope you don't actually think that I missed your attempt to chastise me for insulting people <i>while simultaneously insulting me personally,</i> insinuating that I'm incapable of comprehending "a long list of things."

I've called a vague group of people idiots, while you've called me blind -- me personally. You're not standing on moral high ground.

At any rate, your policy of mere retaliation -- of merely responding to attacks -- strikes me as inadequate when terror states like Iran are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Doing nothing while they obtain such weapons and then further waiting until Manhattan is a glowing heap of corpses, steel, and concrete strikes me as dangerous.

I don't concede your perspective on Iraq: Hussein violated a decade's worth of UN resolutions, he did not cooperate with 1441, and it is clear that he had both a program for developing WMD's <i>and the weapons themselves</i>, if not in the quantities we feared. The justification for removing him from power remains valid.

But even if it didn't, this instance doesn't overturn the validity of preemption against rogue states that are -- by all appearances -- seeking WMD's, at least when diplomacy and sanctions have proven to be ineffective.

The blood and treasure that you believe we've "wasted" in removing Saddam from power is a minor loss compared to what we risk losing if do nothing while our enemies try to acquire the frightening power of nuclear and biological weapons.

[jmyoung]

Are there not people who oppose the administration for purely partisan reasons? Are there not people who are ultimately not interested in the defense of this country, or are at least willing to sacrifice national security for other, lesser ends? And are there not people who truly believe that the United States is and ought to be a diminishing power on the world stage?

I am not sure how the last one is anti-patriotic. Is it unpatriotic to believe your country should not be the most powerful country in the world? Geuine question. It does not seem to me to be inherently unpatriotic.

In what sense are these people patriots? And if some people can challenge not only the intelligence but also the morality of the administration and its supporters, just why in the world can no one dare question the patriotism of these people?

Because the detractors believe the administration does not represent this country's interests and in fact, represents principles counter to those espoused by our forefathers. That would make their actions very patriotic. However, the only basis the administration has for questioning the patriotism of its detractors is that its detractors disagree with the administration. It's a non-sequitor response to the administration's attackers.

If the administration wants to criticize the logic or naivete of its detractors, it obviously may anger them, but would not constitute a non-sequitor. The administration can address the criticisms or supply its own based upon the actions or words of its detractors, but to question their patriotism because they disagree with administration policy begins to get a bit Orwellian.

As Jonah Goldberg <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg072602.asp">noted</a> a few years back, "in American politics you can flagrantly indict someone's racial tolerance, their love of children, their charity, and so forth — Democrats do it all the time to Republicans — but if you 'question' someone's patriotism you're an ogre, a bully, an (always ill-defined) 'McCarthyite.'

The criticisms leveled by Democrats are based upon the administration's words and actions and the policies it espouses. If there is a basis in the words used or actions taken by your detractors that can reasonably be construed to indict them as unpatriotic, then by all means, imply they are unpatriotic. However, that basis has to include something other than "they disagree with my policy."
.
On a side note, while the vast majority of conservatives may not be racist, statistically speaking, like it or not, the majority of racists are conservative.

"Questioning an opponent's patriotism isn't necessarily nice or appropriate, but I don't know why it's any worse than Jesse Jackson suggesting Republicans are Nazis or Ralph Nader categorically asserting that businessmen are greedy."

I would need to see the context of these assertions before rendering judgment.

[Nat Gertler]

I've called a vague group of people idiots, while you've called me blind -- me personally.No, actually, "blind" is your word. As to your inability to see things, you've invoked it multiple times:I don't see how a person who wrote this[...] And I fail to see how it's controversial to write that [...][...]I don't see the problem of describing a person as unpatriotic[...]There seem to be other things which you cannot see, like how someone who disagrees with you on certain matters of policy might not be a moron (http://www.answers.com/moron&r=67).

[jmyoung]

Nat, calling a person unpatriotic is not analogous to using an ethnic slur against him; I hope that I'm not the only one who sees just how strained an analogy that is.

If Bill Clinton were unfaithful to his wife (and he has been) and his behavior indicated unfaithfulness (e.g., in being serviced by an intern), it is not an outrage to call him adulterous. (Same for Guiliani and Gingrich, if you think I'm being partisan.)

Likewise, if a person is unfaithful to his country and his behavior indicated unfaithfulness, it is not an outrage to call him unpatriotic.

Except to call someone an adulterer simply because they diagree with you would be wrong, just like calling someone unpatriotic just because they disagree with you.

I'm suspicious of those who balk at the use of the label of "adulterer" as an accurate description of a man who is unfaithful to his wife; it makes me inclined to believe they want to give people a certain amount of cover for acts that make the label accurate.

Want to be an adulterous and get away with it? Drive the stigmatizing label of "adulterer" from the public square. Why is it some on the left want to drive the label of "unpatriotic" from civil discussion?


Can one commit treason for mercenary reasons like profit? Sure. One can also marry for the mercenary reason of money. Nevertheless, it remains true that marriage is the proper culmination of romantic love, and it remains true that treason is a singularly extreme expression of dissent. The existence of other causes for both marriage and treason changes none of this.


I'll give you one "lesser end" for which some people oppose Bush's policies: I believe some politicians oppose Bush's policies to appeal to the lunatic fringe of their political base within their party, regardless of the effectiveness of those policies.

Are you serious? Wow. This is the first stement you have posted that suggests you are seriously out of touch with reality.

Care to provide even one essential liberty we've lost in the last five years?

Umm. - Wiretapping without a warrant. Illegal incarceration and torture of "terrorist suspects."

You write, "when you trot out the question of national security against unnamed 'lesser ends', it's good for someone to bring up that an end isn't lesser just because it isn't security. And Ben's a good man to do it."

That makes the rather audacious presumption that a policy of the Bush Administration actually does (or at least plausibly does) threaten an essential liberty -- either that, or it's a well-worn red herring.

You want to suggest that people opposed Bush's policies to protect an essential liberty? Fine: name the liberty.


You write that those who I think are idiots may be "smart enough to realize that one of the reasons that Iran's influence is so hostile to America is that America used its strength to empower a harsh regime there for decades. There have been a number of times where America has been harmed by its own strength, like a man who throws a ball hard against its wall and is knocked over when it bounces back at him."

Even assuming all this is an accurate interpretation of history -- and ignoring the fact that the Iranians who are so hostile to us replaced our harsh regime with one that was arguably even more severe -- this all ignores the question, what happens if our current strength and influence diminish?

Reducing the amount of influence we have on the world does not mean reducing our strnegth or ability to defend ourselves. One of the things I find most galling about the Bush administration is that they have done alomost nothing to improve national defense, and instead have concentrated on wasting our military strength in a country that was not a threat to us.

Will we as a nation be safer, despite the examples like Somalia that demonstrate that weakness emboldens our enemies? Those who actually believe so really are morons in the face of human history and human nature.

BTW, do you realize that the philosophy you seem to believe is fascist in nature?

Even if it's true (which I doubt), the idea that we are responsible for the creation of all our enemies does not logically lead to the conclusion that disarming and then prostrating ourselves before them will make them go away.

No, but maybe treating other countries with the respect that America thinks it deserves will earn us that respect.

Whether we created them or not, our enemies exist. Being weaker than we are now will not make us safer and therefore cannot be for our own good; given the brutal, authoritarian nature of our enemies, our weakness will not advance our principles.

Those who do not understand this <i>are</i> idiots. Those who do understand and yet desire our diminishing as a world power and thus our defeat at the hands of our enemies <i>are</i> guilty of holding beliefs that betray not only our nation but also Western civilization itself and the freedoms it protects.

Those who believe we deserve defeat and welcome it deserve to be hanged -- or deserve to live out their lives as defeated dhimmis under a regime which denies altogether the existence of any essential liberties.

[jmyoung]

On what basis do you assert that even terrorists who were caught outside this country, on the battlefield, and who are not American citizens have an <b>essential</b> right to the protections and process guaranteed by our nation's constitution to our nation's people?

If the words of the Constitution are not merely empty rhetoric then OF COURSE THEY DO.

I'm sorry - are you and I blessed by Nationality? Why the Hell wouldn't they. People have the right not to incriminate themsleves - as long as they were born in the right place or relocated to the right country.

Not only are you a fool, but you are an unpatriotic fool.

[AuH20]

<i>"Not only are you a fool, but you are an unpatriotic fool."</i>

I don't suppose I should wait for Nat Gertler to chastise you for calling someone else a fool and for questioning his patriotism.


Nat, as I've said before, I don't believe people are merely idiots or morons for disagreeing with me. There are, however, certain issues where I believe certain positions are so unintelligent that the labels apply to those who hold those positions; there is nothing wrong with that.


JM, very briefly:

- I believe one is unpatriotic to want his nation's power to diminish <i>if such a diminishing makes them more vulnerable</i>, which I believe to be true in this case, and if furthermore one acknowledges that reality.

- I believe that people are questioning the patriotism of <i>some</i> on the left (certainly not all), not <i>merely</i> because they disagree with the administration's policies, but for much more than that; Michael Moore, for instance, who had a seat of honor beside former President Carter at the 2004 DNC, wrote earlier that year a note in which praised and arguably supported the insurgents who were and are killing American soldiers: “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.”

- I agree that most conservatives aren't racist (thank you), and I furthermore do not believe that conservatism is inherently racist, but I'll grant it's likely that most racists are conservatives; however, most <i>race-baiters</i> are liberals.

- Jesse Jackson said some years back, "in South Africa, we call it Apartheid. In Nazi Germany, we'd call it fascism. Here in the United States, we call it conservatism." During the 2000 recount, he accused George W. Bush of using "Nazi tactics" and Jeb Bush of "once again" targeting Holocaust survivors. You asked for the context, and I haven't the time to provide it in full; I wonder in what context comparing Republicans to Nazis would be acceptable to you.

(Actually, I don't wonder all that much, given your flippant use of the word "fascist.")

- To suggest that some Democrats oppose Bush's policies to appeal to their base is not to lose touch with reality, nor is it to notice how some (too many, in my opinion) within that base are loony.

- Not every instance of warrantless wiretapping is inherently illegal, our long-term detaining of combantants is not <i>prima facie</i> illegal, and we do not have a policy that allows torture.

- To be honest, in those areas where I think Bush is dropping the ball on national security -- such as securing the border -- I am livid. I don't think that it is inherently true that a diminishing American presence on the world stage would always endager national security, but I believe that is certainly the case when you have jihadists being supported by rogue states with global aims and the intent to acquire nuclear weapons.

- The administration did not argue that Saddam's Iraq was an immenent threat, but that it was becoming a threat -- a hard argument to dispute given things like Saddam's violating UN resolutions for a decade and his targeting former a U.S. President for assassination.

- I believe those who refer to Saddam's Iraq as "a country that was not a threat to us" should be asked point-blank: would you prefer Saddam to be back in power?

- You don't understand the word "fascist." A wise man does not use what he does not understand.

- Treating rogue states like Iran with respect they have not earned will not make us any safer. While I'm on the subject, singing John Lennon's "Imagine" will not cure cancer, and there's really no point waiting for the Great Pumpkin on Halloween night. <i>Truly</i> fascist regimes (like Iran) understand and respond to power, not compliments.

- Finally, I would like you to point out precisely which passages of the U.S. Constitution extend its guarantees to people who are not citizens of and who do not live in the United States, or explain how this works if it isn't explicit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that the government of Brunei ratified the U.S. Constitution or any of its amendments, so I have no clue how its government is constrained by (for instance) our First and Second Amendments, nor do I fathom how people who live in and are citizens of Brunei are protected from anyone by those amendments.

Do I think that all people have an inherent right to free speech? <b>Yes, I do.</b>

(Even if I didn't, I'm not sure how the label "unpatriotic" applies. You must just like the word, even though you think it's almost "Orwellian" for others to use it.)

But while I think people have an inherent right to free speech, I do not believe the U.S. Constitution protects that right for people whose governments have not ratified the document. The Constitution is a contract between the American government and its people: hence the opening phrase "We the People of the United States," not "We the People of Earth."

It may be immoral for the CIA to gather intelligence on foreign nationals on foreign soil without a warrant or court order. I don't think it is, particularly because they're not gathering that intelligence in order to build a legal case, but to help us wage war and to prevent those foreign nationals from succeeding in an attack on our country, its allies, and its interests.

It may be immoral, but it's sure not unconstitutional; Amendments IV and V simply do not apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil. Furthermore, it <b>is</b> unconstitutional for the judiciary to force itself on the process of gathering such intelligence, as the authority to wage war (and consequently gather the intelligence necessary to do so) lies clearly with the Commander in Chief.

[AuH20]

I have a business trip coming up, I think I've answered most of what's been written to my satisfaction, and I doubt I could satisfy Nat or JM. I'll try very hard to let y'all have the last word, but let me first wrap up on my end:


<b>"Unpatriotic"</b> -- like "racist" or "fascist" -- is a serious charge that ought not to be used lightly. But like those two terms, the word denotes a something real, namely an attitude of disloyalty to one's own country. Since it isn't merely a slur, it ought not to be driven from the public square entirely.

If some on the right are accusing some on the left of being unpatriotic <i>merely</i> because of a disagreement on policy -- more specifically, a disagreement that two patriots could truly have in good faith -- they are wrong to do so.

(I will add here that it would likewise be wrong for those on the left to wield the word "illegal" because of policy differences, to accuse the administration of committing crimes <i>merely</i> because its policy is not what they would prefer.)

But I do not believe we are invoking the phrase "unpatriotic" merely because of policy positions. It seems to me that some on the left are lionizing our enemies and perhaps even desiring either their victory or our defeat.

One should not make the accusation lightly, but one also should not reject it out of hand. At the barest of minima, some on the left may go a tad too far in their opposition to George W. Bush, perhaps despising good news for this country (gas prices are falling, we thwarted another terrorist plot, etc.) simply because that news is political beneficial to the President.

There are those who probably even now replying to themselves, "You can't go too far in opposing Bush." Consider the consequences of that belief; I know I have.

[johnchrist]

So I'm a bit late on this one,
Just read the essay, pretty good, but I'd still say patriotism is NOT about a flag, or following what the majority says, or even killing your enemies. Patriotism is about following the ideal on which you believe your country was founded on. Personally, I believe our nation was founded on dissent. We were told to do something, we said "why and what for?"
Thoreau was right when he called it our "Duty of Civil Disobedience." We're Americans, and it IS our duty to question all authority, even if we believe that what that authority says is good. An unquestioned authority is an absolute authority, and to hell with that.
It is not an unpatriotic thing to question our President, our government, or our society now and in the past (as I said before, it is the MOST patriotic thing). The only thing which can ever be considered unpatriotic is acting, with foreknowledge, in a way that is detrimental to the safety and survival of your nation and it's citizens in an effort to attain your own profit, monetary or otherwise (something I'd say GW may be doing but can't be positive of).
However, calling someone "unpatriotic" just because they are opposed to your opinion IS wrong, if we were in the Soviet Republic it would have been a correct assessment to call someone unpatriotic, there the government WAS right, no matter what, and by questioning it you were going against the very ideal of its founding.
But as I said before, the U.S.A. was founded on a question and I'll be damned if I don't keep asking it.

[Calybos]

Every budding empire insisted that their total dominance over all neighboring states was "essential to our national security." It was a transparent excuse then, and it still is today.

Is it "unpatriotic" to say that America shouldn't be an empire? I don't think so. Actually, I think it's among the more patriotic attitudes you can have--preserving and restoring the notion of democracy rather than fascist bully.

As for what rights have been lost, this has already been answered--at which point AuH20 immediately switched over to "Well, how CAN you protect America without violating our liberties, huh, Mister Smart Guy? Tell me that. I want a specific, detailed plan for fixing what we broke without trashing the Constitution like we'd prefer, or else you're just full of hot air."

AuH20, you really oughta apply for an internship at Fox "News." They can use a mindset like yours.

[AuH20]

I think I can squeeze in a quick reply to people who haven't posted before in this thread.


John, if the President supports freedom of speech and religious freedom, is questioning him "the MOST patriotic thing"? <i>Really?</i> So, to hell with what positions our government officials take, to hell with what values they defend, the MOST patriotic thing is always to question them?

General skepticism of government officials is a good, healthy thing; kneejerk gainsaying of government officials is neither wise nor virtuous nor patriotic.


Actually, Calybos, I didn't "immediately" change the subject. In addition to asking for alternative policies to ensure our national security (a reasonable request assuming people <i>do</i> care about such things), I demonstrated skepticism about the accuracy of some of the claims like the claim that we're torturing detainees <i>and</i> skepticism about the validity of the idea that things like FISA constitute threats to what Benjamin Franklin referred to as "essential" liberties.

In passing reference to the "Fox News" comment, I will note that, even though the left supposedly champions diversity, they apparently cannot stand diversity in the newsroom when it comes to editorial positions that are even somewhat to their right.


Finally, I don't think it's the case that the administration is attempting to exert "total dominance over all neighboring states" in an attempt to build an empire. Contrary to the fear-mongering of those intellectual giants in Green Day, the Eiffel Tower is still standing despite France's objections to our foreign policy.

And for you to ignore the militant Islamists who want to subjugate the world under the heavy hand of sharia law and kill us infidels who dare oppose them; for you then to look at the people who are resisting the Islamists by attempting to protect and spread Western values of political and economic and religious freedom only to call <i>us</i> the fascist bully...

...it would be laughable if it weren't so truly Orwellian, so dangerous to both our safety and our liberty, and so morally repugnant.

[johnchrist]

John, if the President supports freedom of speech and religious freedom, is questioning him "the MOST patriotic thing"? Really? So, to hell with what positions our government officials take, to hell with what values they defend, the MOST patriotic thing is always to question them?

Yes it is the MOST patriotic thing, because as Americans it is our DUTY to stay educated about the reasons behind our government officials actions so the we can make INFORMED choices when we vote (or IF we vote as most citizens might say). When you agree with a particular move by someone in the government it is time to ask why they did it, what were their motivations, and then look closely at the action and make sure that they ACTUALLY did what they said they did.
GW signed the "Save the Forest Act" which actually proved far more detrimental to our forests' survival. And does a President who supports clearly religous motivated measures ACTUALLY support freedom of religion? (i.e. abortion, gay rights, prayer in school)
Does a political party who cries "Unpatriotic!" at every vocal dissent to their opinion REALLY support freedom of speech? Freedom of speech is our right to say, "I disagree and here's why." To wit, the opposition can reply "Horsesh*t! You're wrong," and that would be quite valid, however calling someone "unpatriotic" for simply exercising their most basic freedom as American citizens seems to be very wrong headed.
The funny thing here is that you probably believe I am a knee-jerk liberal Democrat out for the decimation of our military and the destruction of our core American Values.
In actual fact, just to lay it all on the table, I support the ideals behind which the Republican party was originally founded (i.e. personal responsibility, small gov., keeping the government out of peoples personal lives, an