Bad American

Media Matters in one of their interminable updates, takes Jonah Goldberg to task for impugning Barack Obama’s patriotism.

Whoop-de-do. It’s exactly the kind of kn0w-nothing hit job we’ve come to expect from a mental midget like Goldberg. Whenever I see him on TV, I have to change the channel or the TV may suffer physical damage.

You can read the whole MM piece but I’ll concentrate on the parts of Goldberg’s column (in the LA Times, sigh, its so sad to see once legitimate newspapers prostitute themselves for the money of crypto-fascists, sic transit journalistica) they reproduce since this pearl of wisdom is available only to Times’ subscribers. Not really worth it at any price.

Of course, I have covered the whole ‘patriotism’ with Obama before here.

But if Goldberg is going to continue waving the bloody shirt, so will I.

Goldberg wrote in his March 11 column:

‘Unity is the great need of the hour. … Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I’m not talking about a budget deficit. … I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”

So quoth Barack Obama in Atlanta on Jan. 20, but it might as well have been last week, so central is unity to his presidential campaign. And then there’s Michelle Obama. “We have lost the understanding that, in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another,” the would-be first lady told a rally last month. “That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done.”

What is fascinating here is not the sentiment, but what’s missing from it. The P-word.

To invoke patriotism seriously is to brand yourself either an old fogy or a right-wing bully. If Obama spoke about patriotism with the sort of passion he expends on unity, many would take him for some sort of demagogue.

Because, according to Goldberg, you can’t talk about uniting the country without swearing fealty to his medieval idea of what constitutes ‘patriotism.’

So what kind of ‘patriotism’ is Goldberg talking about? More:

When Democrats do speak of patriotism, it is usually as a means of finding fault with Republicans, corporations or America itself. 

Corporations? Seriously Jonah, are you daft? How do you speak of patriotism as a means of finding fault anyway?

OK, so when Republicans speak of patriotism, it is usually a means of glorifying capitalism, warmongering and Christian theocracy. And impugning that anyone who doesn’t believe that love of country isn’t inexorably tied up with profit, killing and Jesus isn’t a ‘real American.’

Indeed, the one area in which Obama explicitly invokes patriotism is in the realm of economics. He proposes a Patriot Corporation Act that would punish corporations that legally avoid U.S. taxes. (”Now here is a Patriot Act everyone can get behind,” gushed the Nation’s William Greider.)

Jonah, see your reference to “corporations” above. You might have a hard time removing your lips from the rectums of your corporate masters, but for the millions out here in the rust belt who lost their jobs due to the economic theory you worship like a deity, they’re ready to call these ‘corporations’ on their shafting of the workers that made them rich. But do you think that corporations have no requirement to be ‘patriotic?’ I guess that’s what ‘globalism’ means to Jonah Goldberg: corporations are exempt from any loyalty to the nation or people who made them wealthy. Because, as we all know, capital owes allegiance to no flag, right Jonah.

But PEOPLE, the common folk, oh they BETTER pledge their allegiance to your ideal of America or they’re BAD AMERICANS, right?

Perhaps it’s also long past time to remove the status of personhood from corporations?

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama famously declared last month that her husband’s candidacy elicited pride in her country for the first time in her adult life. I like to think that’s not really what she meant, but it’s a sign of how ill-equipped she and so many others are on the left when it comes to discussing such issues.

Yes, all Democrats should be forced to sign ‘loyalty oaths’ pledging their allegiance to corporations, the flag, Halliburton, apple pie, cluster bombs and Jesus.

And it’s a crying shame, despite the fact that the Democrats’ rhetorical disadvantage is a huge boon for the Republicans. One cannot credibly talk of love of country while simultaneously dodging the word and concept of patriotism. And, I would argue, one cannot sufficiently love one’s country if you are afraid to say so out loud. 

Of course, it’s fine and dandy as long as YOU love your country FOR THE EXACT SAME REASONS that Jonah Goldberg does. Not for any of those mamby-pamby things like ‘equality’ or ‘compassion and care for the weak’ but God, guns, guts and useless pledges of loyalty to colored cloths and gestures of hands over hearts and flag lapel pins made in China.

I agree with Jennifer Lehr:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
–Geraldine Ferraro

I woke up this morning, read the above quote and wanted to kill myself.

Hey, welcome to the club Jen.

(I have a friend whose mother and brother did commit suicide and even he says things like “The weather is so bad today I want to kill myself.” So what I mean is, I didn’t want to die die, but I did want to die.)

WTF?

No dear, spell it out - what - the -fuck?

I had to think for a minute what Ferraro was trying to say and why she was saying it. I mean aren’t there a million other “good” things she could say about Hillary or other negative things she could come up with against Barack to support her candidate. I couldn’t even understand her point really. What was she trying to say exactly?

Did she mean that Barack is lucky to be black at this point in our nation’s history because on the whole we Americans feel so guilty about our despicable treatment of African Americans that we will vote for Barack to make ourselves feel better? That the guilt we feel over denying women equality is nowhere near as strong as the guilt we feel over slavery and segregation?

She couldn’t have been saying that, could she?

Oh yeah, she could. And did.

And that is exactly the kind of crap that turns a lot of progressives off to Hillary because you know damn well Ferraro and Clinton are sisters-in-whine when it comes to this sense of chip-on-the-shoulder entitlement.

Lehr:

Doesn’t she realize that that is one of major reasons Barack is ahead? That we’re sick of that bullshit?

She could spell bullshit and not fuck? WTF?

Enough already ladies. I don’t want to want to kill myself anymore because I’d love to see a woman I can respect lead this nation.

OK Jen, enough of the suicide humor, we get it.

But the real insulting part of Ferraro’s comments is that somehow, some black people are lucky, no make that damn lucky for being black.

Not when looking for homes to rent or going on job interviews but politicians in America apparently lucky to be black.

I wonder if someone like Ferraro would acquiesce to their own ‘Watermelon Man’ scenario where tomorrow she would wake up black and have to spend the rest of her life in that situation? Would she go for it?

My, oh my, Obama is soooo lucky to be a black man running for President in 2008. Luckier than Jesse Jackson was back in the 80s apparently. You remember Jesse don’tcha Geraldine?

Perhaps Ferraro is closer to Rush Limbaugh’s view of Obama as some kind of ‘Magical Negro‘ who, like Jesus, will atone for the sins of white America by shouldering our burden as his own?

In any case, if Ferraro doesn’t see her own racism in her statement, it’s a statement about what some conservatives, with some justification, call ‘limousine liberals’ who love the proletariat as long as they don’t have to live next to them. Another such creature that comes to mind is Nancy Pelosi. And to be fair, so is Ted Kennedy, but then again, aren’t all Kennedys?

Real feminists aren’t racists. That should be rule one.

I like what Pam had to say here:

That one is pretty breathtaking on several levels, considering her selection as VP was most certainly due in part to the fact she is a woman.

In any case, using this particular line of thinking…

* If Clinton were a black man, Hillary would have been told to drop out of the race after losing 11 contests in a row, after all, John Edwards had to get out after losing only 3.

* If Obama were white, as it has already been noted elsewhere, he’d already be the nominee, because it’s pretty clear that while there are blacks voting for him because of his race, there are certain demographic groups who didn’t vote for him because he’s black, and those are the Reagan Democrats that Hillary is chasing.

In any case, since he’s biracial, does that factor into Ferraro’s deluded thinking? What would happen, for instance, if Obama were not visibly identifiable as black (as in, he could pass), but identified as such — does that make any difference in perceived advantage? It’s crazy-making.Yes, indeed.

Today’s Contemporary Americana!

This guy recently linked to this blog. If you can stand the stupidity, the willful cluelessness and lack of any moral center, go visit it. Bring your barf bag with you.

What really disturbs me is this guy describes himself thusly:

I’m a fifty-something married guy with four kids in a small central Minnesota town.

Remember how ordinary most of the people who made the Third Reich run were?

My background in history, and attitude toward human goofiness, is off the fiftieth percentile: whether above, below, or to the side, I’m not sure.

Please, please tell me this person doesn’t have a degree in history from an accredited university, please!

What amazes me is that so many people who have not had the experience of actually being trained in the interrogative arts spout such gibberish on blogs. Of course, this guy really thinks he’s cute when he shows his ignorance to the world like waving a big flag. Here is how he headlines his blog:

Welcome to the 21st century. The Cold War, WWII, and WWI are over.

Really? Hey, George, did’ja hear that? They signed the Armistice! Hooray the war to end all wars is over! And lookie there, the Japs surrendered too! Way to go! And hey, the Communists took down the Berlin Wall. I had no idea. It’s so nice to be told these things!

Of course, if you learned your history in an American public school you may NOT indeed realize the above ‘conflicts’ ever happened. But most of the ‘book learnin’ people seemed to get it.

The 19th and 20th centuries’ class conflicts and colonial issues are behind us.

You’re kidding, right? Where did you hear this? On Free Republic?

Start your education with this book and understand the following:

Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results. — Machiavelli

“Oppressed proletariat” and “European expansionism” are no longer relevant.

Tell them.

Religious fanatics want their beliefs to rule the world.

Like this guy?

Free people want to stay that way.

No matter how many innocent people have to die under out planes tanks and bombs. After all, they’re not Americans. God said we should rule the world by any means possible. And Jesus Christ beats Mohammed hands down in any showdown of deities. Our Bible said so.

Look I know it’s a fool’s errand to educate the terminally stupid and/or frightened, but if I don’t at least try than my time spent on this miserable spinning planet will have been in vain.

Of course, as Peter Erlinder wrote today in CommonDreams, torture is not only reserved for all of America’s overseas enemies but the domestic ones as well. Erlinder gets into the Kafkaesque (Brian - look it up) treatment of our government of Dr. Sami al Arian, a man imprisoned largely due to the efforts of Bill O’Reilly with a big assist by corrupt and contemptible US attorneys.

Ok, back on topic. Here’s possibly the best evisceration of the whole ‘pro-torture’ argument from Winter Patriot.

Don’t expect it to have any effect on people like Brian.

If you want to get all ‘historical’ and ‘philosophical’ about it, you can check out Scott Atran’s excellent piece in today’s HuffPo which contains this nugget:

The political and social movement for recognition of human rights began in earnest in the second half of the 18th century, particularly with the Jean Calas Affair in France (1760s): he was broken on the wheel and waterboarded. The Italian politician Cesare Marquis de Beccaria, commenting on the case, proposed making such “torments” of an individual human being a measure of the “contempt of all mankind.” In The Invention of Human Rights, Lynn Hunt chronicles how the right to protect the body from torment became the first human right accorded to individuals.

But that, of course, has no effect on people whose only experience with the interrogative arts are watching reruns of “24.”

Again, sometimes I feel as though I am the guy in Harlan Ellison’s short story “Silent in Gehenna” who, in the end, is allowed to exist only to remind a too-far-gone society of what shame is supposed to feel like. They are reminded, and then resume torturing anyway.

There are ways we can still throw our shoulders to the wheel if we wish.