Barbara,

Nice article. I think you'll find most here at BC in agreement with you - regardless of which side of the aisle they reside. The lapel pin issue is ludicrous at best, and at worst devious.

I recently read "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative" by Allen Raymond and Ian Spiegelman.

One of the interesting things that the authors point out is that it is just this kind of thing that, maddeningly or not can turn an election. As is often said, winning takes 50% + 1 vote. All of these little things that hit the airwaves or print media, regardless oh how idiotic, or how lacking in truth, can sway votes.

Judging from your reference to your high school days, I figure that I am maybe around 10 years or so your senior. But, we are close enough to being contemporaries that I assume that you remember the time and events surrounding Vietnam. If anything, this was even a more contentious time. Flag burning became a major issue (and, maddeningly continues to be so today.) There were any number of ways people used to take measure of another's patriotism. Most of them were just as bogus as the lapel pin. The call to stand by our country whether "right or wrong" never rang true to me then, nor does it now.

As you note, it is not only our right, but our duty as citizens to stand in open opposition to government policies with which we disagree. That is politics; American politics at its best.

It is sad that stupid issues like lapel pins, or occasional mind farts by candidates can totally sabotage a campaign.

B-tone

Thanks B-tone. I've been watching the HBO series on John Adams, and I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought about that flag-pin question. On the other hand, John Adams did sign that terrible sedition act!

I do remember those days, along with the apathy that abounded then as much as now. One of my own favorite buttons said: "Give a damn." It's a true a sentiment now as it was then. Flag pins and bumper stickers are as lazy as the sound-bites that define lazy journalism.

Barbara,

I don't get HBO, but I am a fan of Mr. Adams. His was a consistent voice of reason at times during the Constitutional Convention in Philly.

I did read McCullough's book. I have always enjoyed his writing. I just recently finished his 1776. I remember that it was McCullough who used to be the host of "The Smithsonian" (not sure if that was the actual name of it) television series several years ago.
He was very engaging and obviously well schooled in U.S. History.

It's hard to say what the founders would think of current American politics. They would likely find much of it troubling, but actually, journalists were much rougher on candidates back then. There was no pretense to "fair and balanced" reporting.
Pretty much anything and everything was fair game.

It seems to me that Adams' involvement with the Sedition Acts was reluctant if my memory of McCollough's text is at all accurate. Regardless, they became part of his legacy and was far and away the biggest mistake of his presidency. It, among other things doomed Adams to a single term. Jefferson, of course, was very popular and such a dashing figure as compared to Adams' rather frumpy appearance. It could be though that a large number of the country's population at that time never actually saw either Jefferson or Adams or even their likenesses. But most of those who cast ballots back then were probably familiar with how each of them appeared.

Another little thought. Given the highly literate level of much of her correspondence, Abigail Adams was perhaps more informed and more intelligent than her chubby hubby. She carried on quite a correspondence with Jefferson, among others. Nothing tawdry. Her letters to Jefferson and others were usually very much concerned with the war and politics of the day. She pretty much ran the family farms and businesses in John's absence, which was long and often. She was one smart cookie. I bet she could give both Hillary and Barack a run for their money if she weren't, well, if she weren't dead. Death seems to hamper campaigning. Of course, a couple of dead candidates have won races in recent years. Maybe that's the way to go - so to speak.

Hey, I used to have a button from the early 70s that said "Pumpkins for Peace." That was a real grabber. Say what?

B-tone

Barbara, one of the Ron Paul activists I met recently has "We the People" and other snippets of the Constitution tattooed quite large in easily visible areas of his body. Is that patriotic or just a little bit over the top?

Dave

Baronius--the HBO mini-series is well worth watching. Be sure to see it when it comes out on DVD. It's very well done. Giamatti makes a good Adams and British actor Stephen Dillane is a wonderful Thomas Jefferson. It's pretty faithful to the McCullough book (upon which it's based).

Dave--ever so slightly overboard (on the other hand, he is a Ron Paul supporter, so...) I have an elderly lady in an adult-education politics class I teach who never goes anywhere without her copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence close at hand in her purse. She's always pulling it out to make an argument in class--much easier than pulling up your shirt, I suppose (or worse) ;)

mea culpa, Baritone. I don't know why my fingers typed Baronius (it's past midnight here, and I have a cold, so I am very, very tired==and apparently confused.) Accept my apologies.

No harm done. Baronius and I come from far different points of the political spectrum, but I'll go out on a limb and say that he would probably be essentially in agreement with you on this one.

By the way. It's happened before. I may have to change sections in the choir. Or perhaps I could become "Counter Tenor."

Baritone

Great job Barbara, and Baritone as well.

I have nothing to add, except to recommend a musical available on DVD, entitled 1776. Here is a link to Amazon for it.

Dan

Barbara,

I understand the sentiments behind your article, and cannot really criticize it. It is obviously a defense of Barack Hussein Obama, even if it doesn't say it is.

I'd like to note, first of all, that wearing an American flag on one's clothing arose as a symbol of support for the United States government against such young women as yourself. Not only did the cops in New York wear them as they beat the shit out of anti-war demonstrators, so did the "union" members of the teamsters and other Republican oriented unions which took to beating up anti-war demonstrators. These were not pins, these were patches sewn on.

Nevertheless, it would have been nice to see anti-war demonstrators cracking skulls to teach the savages who attacked them that they were men and not mice, as did the members of the Jewish Defense League. My memories recall anti-war demonstrators as being unwilling to really fight. Nevertheless, that is water long passed under the bridge.

But worshiping a flag can be dangerous.

This was a painful lesson learnt in 2005. In 2005, "supporting the troops" here meant supporting the expulsion of Jews from their homes in Gush Qatif, an act which has proven to be a monumental mistake, as well as a sin. Supporting the troops still is such an act now. Worshiping the Zionist flag is similarly such an act.

Just some thoughts for a Wednesday evening....

moadím l'simHa,
Reuven

My memories recall anti-war demonstrators as being unwilling to really fight.

Errr, Ruvy... that was the whole idea.

Ruvy,

Yeah, Doc makes a good point. Had "anti-war" demonstrators taken to smashing heads, it seems to me that the whole point would have been lost. Flower children beating people up or shooting at them would not have fit their image nor their purpose.

Of course, the likes of the SDS and the SLA committed violence in the supposed name of peace, but they didn't really catch on. I knew three of the SLA who came out of Bloomington, IN. Two went to prison (Bill and Emily Harris,)for their roles in kidnapping Patty Hearst, and one died in the fire that killed her and 5 other SLA members in Los Angeles (Angela (DeAngelis) Atwood.) They stupidly died and the Harrises went to prison for an il-defined cause.

B-tone

By the way. It's happened before. I may have to change sections in the choir. Or perhaps I could become "Counter Tenor."


Myself, I'm a dramatic soprano (but I'll also do alto from time to time) ;)

I think, as Baritone (got it right this time) suggested, bashing head would have been the antithesis of the passive resistance modeled by the Vietnam and Civil Rights protesters, who took their cue from Ghandi.

Dan--I loved 1776 (William Daniels was an excellent John Adams)

"Barbara, one of the Ron Paul activists I met recently has "We the People" and other snippets of the Constitution tattooed quite large in easily visible areas of his body. Is that patriotic or just a little bit over the top?"


I'm curious.....what would you make of the tatooed portrait of Ronald regan that Ihave on my right buttock then Barbara?

I'm curious.....what would you make of the tatooed portrait of Ronald regan that Ihave on my right buttock then Barbara

The mind boggles, Arch. I simply cannot comprehend. My brother, on the other hand, an arch conservative country singer would probably find it impressive as he reveres Reagan and has cannonized him in song.

Barbara, it's Gandhi, not Ghandi.

When those kids got killed at Kent State, the "peace" bullshit and the flower child bullshit ended. Either you got rid of an oppressive régime determined to send kids off to war to die for nothing - or you shut the hell up. Most people shut the hell up. A few got serious. Serious opposition requires serious action. That means killing the enemy. Usually, that means terrorism.

The problem with the terrorists opposing the Nixon régime is that they were not anywhere near serious enough.

Gandhi was a fool. Proof? India split in two, fought a war costing three million casualties, and is now two nuclear armed nations and three failed states ready to strike at each other after having fought five wars and having thousands die in communal violence of all sorts over sixty years.

"The mind boggles, Arch. I simply cannot comprehend. My brother, on the other hand, an arch conservative country singer would probably find it impressive as he reveres Reagan and has cannonized him in song."

Barbara...are you thinking what I'm thinking. Maybe a little trade.......pictures of a first class Reagan tatoo for a tape of song cannonizing the gipper?

Good God... STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!

I dunno, Baritonius. I don't want to care about the little flag pin. I really don't. But some people flaunt their non-flags the way others flaunt their flags. They assume it makes them better.

You wrote about how a little thing can turn an election, and that's always fascinated me. I never recognize which little thing is going to have an impact. But usually, it's a little thing that gives focus to a bigger perception.

Remember Dukakis riding in the tank? That image allowed a perception of Dukakis to crystallize. He was perceived to be a liberal, weak on defense, but no one had put their finger on it before. On the other hand, there was Bill Clinton playing the saxophone, which brought up all kinds of pot-smoking, girl-chasing imagery. I expected that to be the death of his 1992 campaign. Like I said, I never call these things right.

I've heard Obama's comments about not wearing the pin, and I've seen footage of him not paying attention during the Anthem. When I read Barbara's comments about proudly not displaying the flag, it ties into the sense that Obama considers himself superior to the masses. I'm not going to vote against him because of a lapel pin, but I think there's something bigger going on.

"I'm not going to vote against him because of a lapel pin, but I think there's something bigger going on."


Bingo....

The lapel pin issue alone does not really speak volumes to Obama's patriotism or belief in America as a force for good in the world the way it is and has been in the past 50-60 years.

However when one has a habit of of refusing to do things that most Americans have no problem doing such as displaying the flag in some fashion, putting one's hand over one's heart for the pledge of allegiance or even just coming out and saying that warts and all America is still a great nation in so many respects.

Obama's voting record is more indicative of his true self than his campaign rhetoric and it would appear that he is much further to the left than the mainstream American public. He knows this to be true and that is why instead of hearing what he really believes we get trite catchphrase about change and generalized meaningless platitudes about how we can do better than we're doing now. Gee that's original.

He seems to be weathering the storms in the Democratic primary, partly because Hillary and her people are not on their A game. But when the general rolls around it will be a different world. Maybe I'm biased becuase I am right of center but I don't see how Obama can win it. The GOP, unlike Hillary will not be holding back and John Mccain has proven to have crossover appeal. I don't think that the 22 year old hooka smoking soldiers that Obama has amassed will be able to deliver the victory.

Also Hillary and her people will do everything they can to take Obama down before it even gets to the general. Is there anyone who doesn't think Hillary would rather see Mccain than Obama win it all. Her maiden name may be Rodham but her middle name is spiteful bitch.

Yup....barring any major catastrophes for the Republicans, like John Mccain spontaneously pulling down his pants and takign a crap on the American flag on the White House lawn on the fourht of July, I don't think we will be seeing a Democrat in the white house.

Arch - The question is, does the flag thing symbolize an issue that people other than us would care about? So what if Obama alienates us. We're not likely to vote for him anyway. He's not one lapel pin away from sweeping conservatives off their feet. It's like the "bitterness" statement: I'm not sure it costs him.

...like John Mccain spontaneously pulling down his pants and takign a crap on the American flag on the White House lawn on the fourht of July...

Now there's an image.

How about a million dollar prize for the person who can actually get him to do that?

"But some people flaunt their non-flags the way others flaunt their flags. They assume it makes them better."

Quote for truth!

Doc,

I was born overseas and grew up here. I've never wrapped my head around the patriotism thing. I think America is an incredible place and am happy to be American, I love am a proud South African as well, honored to be Zulu but I don't get the extent of patriotism that people speak of. I feel a swelling up when I see Zulu's dance but its an artistic rapture almost like listening to Handel's Zadok The Priest or Parliament Funkadelic. But I don't get what the hoopla is.

My question to you is if it is the same in Britain. Do you feel emotional over your symbols? If so could you explain that to me.

Side note: I have never felt more appreciative of democracy to the point of feeling a swelling up, by the way, than when I was at Speaker's Corner at 12yrs old. It was a real demonstration of freedom and not the jabbering about liberty that I had heard repeated over and over again in the U.S. It is a beautiful thing (and funny and nutty if I might add)

Baronius,

What an interesting way of saying that Obama supporters (and perhaps the left in general) don't care about the flag. Not sure if you meant it that way but I hope so :>

But you're right. People enamored with Obama will look at this flag thing and say, "Hey, that's just politics as usual stuff, we can't be bothered with that", rinse and repeat. As you know I surely hope he does not win, as I think his policies would destroy this country on a carteresque scale. That said, I have to give Obama credit, given recent events, the "politics as usual" mantra seems employable as a defense against most any gaffe, unthoughtful or elitist comment or action.

"What an interesting way of saying that Obama supporters (and perhaps the left in general) don't care about the flag. Not sure if you meant it that way but I hope so :>"
- Obnoxious American

The wearing of a flag lapel pin is nothing more than symbolism over substance; similar to "supporting" a war...from afar, while someone else does the fighting and dying.

---------------------------

"As you know I surely hope he does not win, as I think his policies would destroy this country on a carteresque scale."

He certainly can't do any worse than our present Deserter in Chief's invasion and occupation of Iraq, ie; 4,100 killed in action, 23,000 wounded in action, $512 billion wasted...and counting...

Of course that doesn't affect you OA, being 10,000 miles from the action...

Zedd, I've become much more patriotic since I moved to the US. I'm very conscious of 'representing' my people, almost as if I'm an ambassador to the Americans.

And yes, I am very proud of the symbols and institutions of my country, however quaint they often seem to outsiders. When I lived in Britain I was indifferent to the Royal Family, for instance - although that may have been down to my irritation at the tabloid media's insistence on turning them into a soap opera. Now I take great pride in them, especially the Queen, who I hold to be one of the greatest and most able monarchs in our nation's long history.

I wonder whether, because you were so young when you emigrated, that's the reason why you don't feel it so acutely. That and it being hard to feel a great deal of affection for a place which regarded you as something less than human just because of the way you looked.

Patriotism in Britain is an odd thing. We're supposed to be a single nation with the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish as equal partners, but whereas the English will generally emphasize their Britishness above all, a Scottish or a Welsh person will almost always express their patriotism primarily in terms of being Scottish or Welsh. (Northern Ireland is a special case and waaaaay too complicated a situation to go into here.)

Non-Celtic patriotism has had a bad rap in recent times because of its hijacking by the extreme right. It's easy to tacitly assume, when you pass by a person wearing a Union Jack t-shirt or a St George's Cross tattoo, that they're off to put the boot in to some 'darky'. But even before that phenomenon it was still oddly muted.

REMF,

Who do you support for president, given that both Democratic contenders have no military experience either?

Doc,

Thanks for responding.

I get what you are saying.

What I am hearing sounds different from American patriotism. It's like an Italian-American being proud of being Italian or like me being proud of a certain type of greeting or "ritual act" or escapade of some warrior. Part of it is spurned by nostalgia, a link to history, familial ties and romantic notions. I also get the pride from the recollection of Nelson's triumphs and those of others in your history. I love the cliche depiction of some seafaring or explorer gentleman in a library on a stuffed leather chair recanting the exploits of his travels, however exaggerated they may be (even though I know that my people were on the wrong end of those adventures). It is always riveting and does cause a swell if not for humanities triumphs.

But there is a glossy vague, theatrical, disconnected quality to American patriotism that I cant latch on to. This lapel flag thing is an example. There is a high school popularity contest quality to it. You don't know why you must do it but if you want to be in, you have to or else you will be in the out group. I just don't get it. Perhaps I just don't want to because a lot of flag wavers are often times narrow minded, vacant types or the Arch(es) of the world.

When you were in Britain were you a flag waver??

I love the 4th and sing the songs with glee (in four part harmony) and watch the fire works but I just don't get the rabid hoopla.

When you were in Britain were you a flag waver??

No. I remember us having flags out for the Queen's Silver Jubilee in '77 and for Charles and Di's wedding in '81, but that's about it.

I think a person's nationality should speak for itself, without having to wear it (as it were) on one's sleeve.

"REMF,
Who do you support for president, given that both Democratic contenders have no military experience either?"
- Obnoxious American

I'm supporting Barack Obama, because he had the judgement to oppose the invasion of Iraq, as did the late Col. David Hackworth.

However, my second choice would be John McCain over Billary, although I strongly disagree with his "100 year war."

I was for McCain in 2000, but unfortunately (draft-dodger) Karl Rove and (deserter) GW Bush dashed those hopes by sliming his (McCain's) patriotism.

Flag pins are OK, but That Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore. I have it on good authority.

REMF,

are you serious??!??!?! You'd vote for Obama and he's never served in the military? Don't give me this judgement crap. That's a total copout my friend. Being anti war in general does not equal having good judgement, and even a broken clock is right twice a day.

The inevitable question is should he become president and should he ever decide to go to war, what would you say then? Very surprised and disappointed in you that you'd elect an elitist orthodox liberal over a war hero and patriot, one with real credibility (and someone you used to support). Pretty sad if you ask me.

And in response to your earlier post, I think you're taking my comments too literally. I don't care what symbolism Obama or any pol employs to muster votes. Because thats all it is, lapel pin, shot and a beer, whatever, it's all symbols leveraged for votes. But, I do believe on a personal level, Obama and his ilk, don't much care about the flag, or what it stands for. His policies are evidence. That's what I was talking about.

Barbara...are you thinking what I'm thinking. Maybe a little trade.......pictures of a first class Reagan tatoo for a tape of song cannonizing the gipper?

Arch--I'll do you one better. He has a Website. You can hear the song itself. I myself never go there. It gives me nightmares to think that this is my flesh and blood.

Ruvy, slip of the fingers to misspell Gandhi's name.

It is all about perception, isn't it. taking something trivial like the wearing of a badge (or not) and make it into something. Doesn't matter about anything except the spin.

I guess it becomes a matter of who spins better while wearing the better anti-spin chainmail.

"symbolism over substance"

REMF, that's exactly the kind of thinking that I find so repellent. A flag pin is symbolism. It's not symbolism over substance. I'm not going to judge a person as superior because of a lapel pin, but I won't assume that they have no substance just because they wear a symbol.

It's childish. It's embarrassing. Why would you think someone better or worse because of a lapel pin of the American flag?

I should point out that Obnox is wrong - I don't think that Obama's fans are more or less respectful of the flag. Some of them are contemptuous of those who display the flag, though. And I don't think that the lapel pin should be an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes one, but it shouldn't, because it's silly.

There's an old Catholic rule about canonization: you don't declare someone a saint because of his good writings, but you can tell someone isn't a saint by his bad writings. In the same way, I wouldn't vote for a candidate because he wears an American flag, although I'd vote against him if he wears a Russian flag.

REMF - Don't talk about hypocrisy. You've spent every moment on these boards talking about how no one has any value unless they've served in the military. Then you say you'd favor Obama over McCain. You demonstrate that you don't really care about military service at all, but use it as a bludgeon.

Yeah, Arch, no one remembers my presidential run. This must be how Giuliani feels.

Should military service be a prerequisite for being president? If we consider the primary job of the president is overseeing war, then perhaps so. War is pretty much what we do. We don't seem to do it very well, but we do it a lot. Maybe we should change our system and have a commander in chief who's one and only job is waging war, overseeing the military, and another person to run other aspects of the country?

It bothers me not a whit that Obama doesn't purport himself like the average American Legioner bleeding red, white and blue all puffed up spewing the Pledge 24/7.

Arch & Baronius, you seem to equate intellect with elitism. Someone more thoughtful may not be comfortable with all the outward trappings of patriotic behaviour. Does that make them less patriotic? I think not.

B-tone

Baritone,

What is patriotism to you?

There is nothing wrong with elitism!!

The high minded-words in the Constitution refer to all "men" being created equal; meaning equal under the law, NOT necessarily equal in intelligence, in strength, in agility, in any number of other characteristics.

Some people work harder than others; some are luckier. Some run faster; jump higher, swim faster, dance more gracefully, sing better.

Elitism is natural; it recognizes the immutable fact that we are NOT all equal; elitism that merely recognizes superiority, that doesn't inflict humiliation or feelings of inferiority on others, that simply says "I'm good at what I do and proud of it," is not evil.

Re #41;

What Zedd sedd.

You missed what REMF what he has been saying. He has been railing at the hypocrisy of those who are all happy pants about war but have not and would not serve. He has explained this a number of times and you keep missing it

You mean like Cheney, George W himself (I do not count what he did as a sorry excuse for service as having actually served.)--other neocons who shout for war as long as they and their progeny don't have to break a fingernail over it? Those guys?

Clavos,

You and I have had our differences in the past, and no doubt will continue to disagree on certain issues in the future.

But I am in 110 percent agreement with your #44. And regarding the charges of elitism towards Barack Obama, here's a guy who was raised by a single parent, who sometimes relied on food stamps just to feed her children; and went through college on loans and scholarships, until just recently paying off his student loans from the sales of his two books.

Obama is ranked 50th in net worth among all U.S. senators.

It is kinda ironic to hear Rush Limbaugh - whose wealthy lawyer father paid for his (Rush's) medical deferment during 'Nam, and who now himself has more money than God - call Barack an "elitist."

Clavos,

I agree with you regarding elitism. But the word is invariably used as a pejorative, usually against liberals.

Zedd,

What does patriotism mean to me? That is a difficult question to answer. As I've noted before, I think nationalism is overrated. It can be just as divisive as religion, ethnism, culture, etc. It implies an "Us vs Them" scenario.

I believe that what the founders of our nation wrought in Philadelphia is perhaps the greatest political document ever written - or cobbled together as the case may be. It laid the foundation for a truly great experiment in government. Is it perfect? No. It has its flaws. That's why it has been ammended and will likely be ammended again as things change.

I guess one of the reasons that I'm not a flag waver, is that all too often they are waved to glorify war. For many, the greatest heights this country has reached have been on the battle field. Far too many people revere war much as Gen. Patton so often did.

Certainly those who have fought and died in defence of this country should be recognized for their bravery and sacrifice. But, it should also be made clear that war is emblematic of failure. We should not take so much pleasure in the fact that we could, if so moved, obliterate pretty much the entire world with our still huge and potent nuclear arsenal. As much as I dislike Iran's Ahmadinejad, I must say I found Hillary's comment regarding our capability to obliterate Iran needlessly offensive. That kind of posturing is bullying. Is that what we are? The world's bully? It would seem so.

There is much else to be said regarding why I don't wave the flag or get all misty when I hear the national anthem (not only owing to the fact that it is a relatively unsingable song.) As a country, the U.S. has accomplished some great things. But we have also made a mess of a great deal as well. If we are to be looked up to as "leaders of the free world," then we must comport ourselves as a nation with far more intelligence than we've seen in recent years.

B-tone

Barbara, interesting article, a good read.

I am generally regarded as a Right-winger, yet I do not often wear an American flag pin, and didn't even when I lived in the States. Why? Because I felt that I had nothing to prove regarding my patriotism. Anyone simply had to ask me, do you love your country? And I've had answered, "Love it? Buddy, I adore it!"

I have an American flag pin at the ready for occasions in which I may wish to wear it, but again, I don't often feel the need to. I carry my love and patriotic feelings for my nation in my heart.

Barbara,

What you don't realize is that this business about flag pins is more than just symbolism - it is symbolism made manifest.

This is why, for a simple example, South Africa no longer bears a modified version of the Afrikaner flag of Transvaal in its flag, why Israel's flag resembles (and is often used as) a prayer shawl, why India has a flag of saffron, white and green with a Buddhist wheel in the middle. These are all indications of symbolism made manifest.

Those flag patches that are now just an everyday symbol on American cops' uniforms started as a political statement. The kids who diddle with computers but have no idea what a slipstick is do not realize that, but guys like me (and Dan Miller, Baritone, Mark Schannon and a host of others) who did have to learn how to work a slipstick, do. We are like that old Yankee in the Pepperidge Farm commercials - we remember. Even if we need reminding sometimes.

And that, my dear, is the point of symbolism made manifest.

Another point that I raised earlier that has gone ignored, but is touched upon by the symbolism of refusing to wear a flag pin.

There was a point in the late '60's and early '70's when the United States could have degenerated into civil war over Vietnam and a host of other issues - and didn't.

The purpose of such a war would have been to oust the oil and banking establishment that was driving America to ruin then, and has nearly accomplished the task today. But for whatever reasons, Americans turned away from excising the cancer in its soul - and payment for having failed to do so is coming due.

Now.

That is why I wrote earlier that the terrorists opposing the Nixon regime were nowhere near serious enough.

And now it's time to listen to Billy Joel singing "Piano Man" and catch a bus for Jerusalem to do some Sabbath shopping.

Later!

Baritone -

"Arch & Baronius, you seem to equate intellect with elitism."

I don't know about Arch, but I didn't mean to imply anything like that. Your statement so confused me that I read back over my comments on this thread (some of which seem to be missing). I don't see any comment that could be misinterpreted to mean what you think I meant. I'm not trying to put a rhetorical spin on anything here; I'm just baffled.

If you don't mind, Baritone, please restate your comment or add some details or something.

Ruvy,

What you suggest regarding the opposition to Nixon, the Vietnam War and so forth was not tenable then, nor would similar actions be now. Such action would tear at the very heart of our society, not to mention that it would likely result in a good deal of death and destruction.

You apparently feel that preferable to living under the auspices of a Nixon or Bush. Neither I, nor the great majority of people here would agree with you.

What has been attained here - and copied to one degree or other elsewhere in the world is unprecidented. You have apparently lived long enough under a state of siege that you have come to assume that to be a normal state of affairs. You also apparently believe that the killing that goes on unabated from both sides is somehow cleansing and holy. It's not. It's just killing.

Mankind can achieve higher goals, a greater level of living without death. Yes, we are engaged in killing in Iraq and Afghanistan and many of us don't approve of it - especially that in Iraq. Oppose it yes. But should we destroy everything in order to put a stop to it?

And remember. It's a two way street. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis are blameless. Is their willingness to continue to wreak death and destruction upon both themselves and others a higher calling? Or is it just neanderthalically stupid?(Is that a word?)

B-tone

Sorry Baronius,

I should not have included you in my statement. It was Arch who refered to the "liberal elite" on this and other threads.

My apologies.

B-tone

"I should point out that Obnox is wrong - I don't think that Obama's fans are more or less respectful of the flag. Some of them are contemptuous of those who display the flag, though. And I don't think that the lapel pin should be an issue. I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes one, but it shouldn't, because it's silly."

Again, I think you miss my point here. Just for clarity, here is what I said:

"But, I do believe on a personal level, Obama and his ilk, don't much care about the flag, or what it stands for. "

And I think this is true. Just listen to Obama's speeches. By his measure, America is in the dust bin, capitalism has failed, people are starving on the streets, and the only solution is a giant left wing government to come in and save the day. Hardly an American position, not one that represents what this country is about, but rather what many on the extreme left hope it will one day become. And they are looking to Obama to make it happen.

And THIS is the point. I could care less what pin whomever wears on their lapel. But for Obama to refuse to wear one is a tell. This tell is confirmed once you listen to Obama's speeches and platforms, platforms that reject the themes that this great country was founded upon, namely individualism and freedom, (as opposed to freedom, when it doesn't impact anyone else). Hence my comment about the pin merely being the tip of the iceberg.

B-tone,

You misread a great deal of what I write - though, under certain circumstances, yes, I believe that killing is holy, particularly if it has been commanded directly by G-d. This has nothing to do with living under a state of siege - this has to do with honestly believing the Tana"kh. But that is not what I'm addressing here at all, and is a subject that can be discussed in another forum, one appropriate to it.

LOOKING BACK WITH 20/20 HINDSIGHT, I realize now that America's last real chance to get rid of the oil and banking establishment monkey riding its back and impoverishing its citizens was by getting rid of the Nixon administration in a violent revolution.

Most of us (myself included) looked at the kids killed at Kent State in 1970, and realized that revolution cost more than we were willing to pay, and those few who didn't did not understand the gravity of the task they were undertaking. I certainly didn't. But I was not going to attempt to overthrow the American government. By this time, the "radical" groups in the States had adopted and increasingly strident anti-Israel and ultimately anti-Jewish tone, and I wanted no part of the bastards. And, as I pointed out above, I could see that the attempt would cost more than I was willing to pay.

The Weathermen and other groups like it who did attempt the violent overthrow were pathetic amateurs. What is surprising is that they did not fail more spectacularly than they did.

So, while there was a chance that your/our country would have sunk into war and revolution, it was unlikely that your/our country actually would. But, that was the route to go, and the fact that this path was not taken will have terrible consequences in the not too distant future.

moadím l'simHá
Reuven

I like you ruvy, but doing as you suggest back in the 70s, and shedding the "oil and banking establishment monkey " would have accomplished one thing only, turned this great country into a third world nation. And of course the impacts to Israel would have been massive.

I don't think that industry is ever the "problem" - industry is just made up of people. Consumers of the products of industry are people. Let's be clear that the only way to remove the need for oil or banking is to remove cars and money. It's this sacrifice, and not the one at Kent State, that Americans (and frankly EVERY other nation in the world) are not willing to make.

I must admit that I agree with OA here. When it comes down to it, the anti-war, anti-government movement of the 60s and 70s were a lot more style than substance. While I did then and to this day agree with a good deal of what they stood for (but not all,) I never felt that violence was a proper course and it would have been a disaster.

First, they could never have won under about any scenario one could suggest. Two, what would have ensued would likely have been a hard move to the right by the government and military and we would have been left living in at least a quasi-fascist state. Nixon and his crew would have loved that.

As OA suggests, a true "revolution" here could have had the effect of rendering us a far less powerful, and, yes perhaps a third world nation. This would now be a truly strange and chaotic world to live in if that had come to pass.

B-tone

Obnoxious?,

The question mark is there because you are anything but obnoxious; your thinking is terribly conventional.

Oil costs about $4.00/a barrel to pull out of the ground.

Why the hell does it cost twenty five times that much on the open market? A reasonable price for oil is $25 a barrel. That way everybody involved makes a fair profit. But the price is nearly four times that. Where are the profits going? And why is there a credit crunch?

Could it possibly be because American oil companies in Saudi are making obscene profits and sitting on the money?

Banks are supposed to take depositors' money and invest it, returning interest on the investments; sharing a small part of its profits on its investments. But the standard banking procedure is to soak the customer with fees.

You can't even fart in a fucking bank these days without getting some damned fee slapped on you!!!

Obnoxious? - G-d invented goyim because somebody has to pay retail. Use that Jewish noodle you have and figure out why you and I and everybody else is being robbed blind by banks and oil companies! We're not paying retail. The assholes have us all by the balls and are squeezing every last dollar/pound/shekel out of us! It's highway robbery! Or haven't you noticed?

Wait till the price of food starts rising too. Then you can have yourself a goyisher good time losing weight - the old fashioned way - starving. You won't need articles in the Readers' Digest or Cosmo to tell you how....

Now, Baritone, for your benefit, let's go back to the last time the United States was truly prosperous - the spring of 1973.

In the spring of that year a senior economist was ordered by his boss at the World Bank to write a paper explaining why tripling the price of oil would benefit the world's economy. The fellow went to his office and started to crunch numbers. He went home and crunched some more numbers. finally, he realized that there was no way to justify tripling the world's oil prices that would produce a benefit.

Hew went to his boss and told him just that. His boss gave him the "John, we don't pay you to think around here" speech heard from the mouths of so many bosses. "Produce a report by Monday, or else!"

How do I know? Because John, the senior economist at the World Bank in 1973, told me himself. He never did write the report. He went to some friends at the Wall Street Journal or New York Times and told them about the orders he had received. They wrote the appropriate articles, it made a stink for a while, and John had to find a different position.

P.S. The price of oil did triple in 1973. Do your remember how that happened? Do I need to tell you the four lettered "word" everybody was cursing by 1 January, 1974?

Are you paying attention, "obnoxious?"?

"You mean like Cheney, George W himself (I do not count what he did as a sorry excuse for service as having actually served.)--other neocons who shout for war as long as they and their progeny don't have to break a fingernail over it? Those guys?"
- Barbara Barnett

Yup, them's the ones.

"The price of oil did triple in 1973. Do your remember how that happened?"

---

The price of energy quadrupled right after October 17, 1973, the day Richard Nixon sold out the American economy and the American people for his own political benefit. Nixon caved in to political pressure from AIPAC, the Jewish lobby in Washington, in defiance of a clear admonition from Saudi Arabia to stay out of Middle East politics. Nixon should be remembered for this debacle but he is not. Our news media has suppressed this perfidy of Nixon for over three decades. The connivance of Nixon in Watergate is a drop in the bucket compared to what he did to the economy of this country.