I‘ve been seeing this image quite a bit over the past couple of days, and, agree, that there isn’t a more poignant way of illustrating the point. It’s about time that “don’t ask, don’t tell” became part of a once shameful past.
It’s said that history is written by the victors, thus they draw the outlines of how events are remembered and retold. Well, I think that’s not quite right or, at the very least, something has gone wrong when it comes to The War of Northern Aggression — otherwise known as The American Civil War.
I may be stereotyping, but it seems that many of the people that support American militarism and unapologetically celebrate what some critique as American imperialism, prefer to stand with the losing and treasonous side of the American Civil War, rather than with the Union.
I’m offended every time I see the so-called rebel flag plastered on bumpers, t-shirts, caps or unfurled in the median of a New England highway (or in the middle of any highway, for that matter). Do the people proudly displaying this treasonous symbol not realize that it’s akin to flying the Nazi flag? Do they not realize that, in spite of the misguided and romanticized version of the Confederate South that still lingers, that that flag represents an odious enemy of America — the country that many of them would claim to love?
Not only is the Confederate flag the symbol of a declared American enemy, it is also the anti-thesis of a founding American value: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The apologist for America’s enemy will likely respond, Well, the Civil War was not about slavery. It was about economics.
To them I say, Bullshit. The American soldier — the Union solider — does not fight and die for the nation’s GDP, or for the promotion of an industrial versus an agrarian economy. No, the American soldier fights and bleeds for their fellow citizens and for the common values that bind us.
The Confederacy, its army and its supporters everywhere — all declared enemies of America — not only committed acts of treason against the American government; but, by turning their back to the call to form a more perfect union, rejected America, its values and their fellow countrymen.
Amazing that to this day, America’s enemy is still celebrated, even by elected government officials:
RICHMOND, Va. – Virginia’s governor has brought Confederate History Month back to the state for the first time since 2001.
Gov. Bob McDonnell designated April to commemorate the secessionist, slaveholding South. His two Democratic predecessors had refused issue the proclamation sought each year by Confederate descendants.
Richmond was the Confederate seat of government.
McDonnell’s 368-word declaration does not mention slavery. The Republican governor said Tuesday that his intent was to honor the sacrifice on Virginia soil and promote tourism.
Since then the Republican governor of Virginia has gone on to include mention of slavery in his commemoration of the Confederacy. However, again, celebrating the Confederacy is akin to celebrating Nazy Germany. Thus, I ask, would mere acknowledgment of the concentration camps be sufficient to permit the commemoration of Nazism? Of course not. Therefore, how is mention of slavery sufficient excuse to carry forward with the celebration of the Confederacy?
Love how the snark oozes just a hair below the surface:
(CNN) — It appears President Obama has to step up his reading pace if he wants to beat his predecessor in one particular measure: how many books a president can polish off a year.
In an interview with the BBC Tuesday, Obama said he is currently reading Joseph O’Neill’s 270-page novel “Netherland,” a book Obama first said he began back in April.
If Obama is close to finishing the novel, that puts him on less than a 10 book-a-year pace, far less than the close to 100 books President Bush was reportedly able to finish in the same amount of time.
[...]
In 2006, Bush read 95 books to Roves 110: a Herculean pace of nearly two books a week — in an election year to boot — for the ex-president. But, according to Rove, Bush’s reading slowed a bit in the final years of his presidency, finishing a not-too-shabby 51 books in 2007 and at least 40 in 2008.
And if that’s not impressive enough, Rove also said Bush found time to read the Bible “from cover to cover” every year.
What can one say, except, Yeah, right!? One hundred books per year my [blip]!
I wish he had read the August 6, 2001, President’s Daily Brief: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.
On Point with Tom Ashbrook did a segment on conservative hate speech being spewed by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, right-wing talk radio and their counterparts on Fox News. Here’s how the program is teased:
[T]he language lately on air has grown particularly fierce and apocalyptic: President Obama called a dictator and sympathizer with terrorists. His policies called socialist, Marxist, Bolshevik, dangerous. Americans called to rise up in revolt. All this while the economy tanks and gun sales surge.
That last line is the operative and, frankly, scary one: while the economy tanks and gun sales surge. Let’s not forget that conservative right-wing blowhards animated, if not inspired, two recent terrorist incidents: 1. A gunman that opened fire at a church for its liberal views, 2. A second man in Pennsylvania ambushed police officers because, he thought, they and Obama were coming to take his guns away.
I wish Tom Ashbrook, the host of On Point, had been unabashedly critical of the vile rhetoric being spewed by conservatives on Fox News and talk radio; but, like a good “journalist,” Tom maintained his objectivity and largely agreed that liberals were guilty of similar offenses during the Bush years. To which I simply respond: bullshit! When was the last time any liberal went on TV or radio to call for armed revolution against the US government? Tom Ashbrook’s default fallback of journalistic objectivity is simply weak, and irresponsible in this instance.
For quite a while I’ve been hoping to see a time when an American president would come along to echo FDR’s struggle against the forces of greed and “selfishness,” that brought our nation to its knees in the 1930s, and which have done so again.
Unexpectedly, at least to me, though I enthusiastically voted for him, it seems that the American president that I’ve been waiting for has, alas, come along, in the form of Barak Obama. I will put aside president Obama’s budget, which has been described as finally treating us as adults, and focus on his recent FDResque style.
On his recent Saturday address, president Obama sounded a populist message that, I believe, will give him some leverage when taking on the “selfish” interests that are so entrenched in Washington, DC. Of course, just like FDR, president Obama recognizes and reminds us that any move against these entrenched forces will be met with deeply rooted resistance, and that the fight will be arduous.
Here’s the passage from the president’s Saturday morning address, on his proposed budget, that has given me such hope:
I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
So am I.
The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people.
What I love about this passage is the strength that it reflects, and, also, president Obama’s acknowledgement that he works for US, the American people.
Moreover, I also hear echoes of one of my favorite FDR quotes in president Obama’s statement, which is something I’ve been wanting to hear from a Democratic president for a long time now.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
Franklin Roosevelt’s Address Announcing the Second New Deal
October 31, 1936
In my lifetime, president Obama is the closest I’ve come to hearing echoes of FDR, and his commitment to economic security for all.
Here’s president Obama’s address, it’s well worth watching:
