I'm no fan of Venezuela's democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez. My most recent criticism of his regime generated quite a bit of flack. But my friend Mark, far more anti-Chavez than myself, pointed out an interesting hypocrisy.
Chavez's assault on Venezuelan broadcasters, press freedom, the judiciary and the political opposition has rightly generated him an avalanche of international condemnation. From conservatives and from the Bush administration, but from many progressive quarters (including myself) and human rights groups as well.
Eight years after stealing power in a military coup, Pakistan's dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf has also launched an assault against the media, the press and the judiciary. American press coverage of this crackdown has been negligible. Outrage has been virtually nil. Particularly in comparison to the cacaphony of anti-Chavez tirades that still ring in the ear.
The State Department's comment: "There have been advances in bringing greater freedoms, including greater freedom of the press, in Pakistan over the years under President Musharraf's government. There have been some openings in that regard. Certainly nobody would want to see those openings reversed."
A pathetically meek reaction, especially compared to the hysterical response to anything Chavez says or does.
I guess freedom (said breathlessly) only applies to anti-American regimes. Regimes who claim abhorr America's enemy of the week are exempt from basic standards of liberty (also said breathlessly).
But anyone familar with the history of First Cold War already knows this.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Blair turns on the media
It was interesting to read about Tony Blair's hysterical rant against certain segments of the British press. The UK prime minister referred to the media as, "feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits."
(The full text of the speech is available here)
If you completely ignore the identity of the speaker, a good chunk of his analysis is spot on. The media is a "feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits." Britain is probably the only western country whose media is more in the gutter than the USA's. He spoke of how the media fosters cynicism (but not politicians, of course). He spoke, as I've written about before, of the increased blurring between news and commentary; he neglected entertainment but his point remains valid.
But of course, you can't completely ignore the identity of the speaker. Blair and his Labour Party were elected in 1997 in no small part due to his assiduous courting of previously anti-Labour segments of the British media, most notably Rupert Murdoch's empire. This man headed of a government that was, for so long, obsessed with PR and spin; style over substance.
Take this passage:
"When I fought the 1997 election - just 10 years ago - we took an issue a day. In 2005, we had to have one for the morning, another for the afternoon and by the evening the agenda had already moved on."
Blair is turning on the beast that made him. But is he doing so because he's truly repelled or because he can no longer control the animal he once conquered?
What's most telling is the objects of his tirade. In what was portrayed as a broad analysis of the British press, he could only find two media outlets as examples of the ills he spoke of: the BBC and The Independent.
Not surprisingly, these media outlets have refused to carry his water over his and Bush's unconscionable actions in aggressing and occupying Iraq. The BBC and The Independent are two of the most intelligent, in-depth, professional media outlets in Britain.
Blair didn't attack The Sun, for example. Britain's top selling rag runs hysterical headlines that would make The New York Post blush. Nor did he attack any other parts of the Murdoch empire, despite them being the very epitomy of trash journalism. Of course, the Murdoch empire endorsed Blair-led Labour multiple times as well as the Iraq Aggression. The BBC doesn't do endorsements. The Independent opposed the Iraq debacle from the beginning.
This commentator doesn't see it as a coincidence.
Neither do I.
It's too bad he focused only on media critical of him. His analysis otherwise might have been credible.
(The full text of the speech is available here)
If you completely ignore the identity of the speaker, a good chunk of his analysis is spot on. The media is a "feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits." Britain is probably the only western country whose media is more in the gutter than the USA's. He spoke of how the media fosters cynicism (but not politicians, of course). He spoke, as I've written about before, of the increased blurring between news and commentary; he neglected entertainment but his point remains valid.
But of course, you can't completely ignore the identity of the speaker. Blair and his Labour Party were elected in 1997 in no small part due to his assiduous courting of previously anti-Labour segments of the British media, most notably Rupert Murdoch's empire. This man headed of a government that was, for so long, obsessed with PR and spin; style over substance.
Take this passage:
"When I fought the 1997 election - just 10 years ago - we took an issue a day. In 2005, we had to have one for the morning, another for the afternoon and by the evening the agenda had already moved on."
Blair is turning on the beast that made him. But is he doing so because he's truly repelled or because he can no longer control the animal he once conquered?
What's most telling is the objects of his tirade. In what was portrayed as a broad analysis of the British press, he could only find two media outlets as examples of the ills he spoke of: the BBC and The Independent.
Not surprisingly, these media outlets have refused to carry his water over his and Bush's unconscionable actions in aggressing and occupying Iraq. The BBC and The Independent are two of the most intelligent, in-depth, professional media outlets in Britain.
Blair didn't attack The Sun, for example. Britain's top selling rag runs hysterical headlines that would make The New York Post blush. Nor did he attack any other parts of the Murdoch empire, despite them being the very epitomy of trash journalism. Of course, the Murdoch empire endorsed Blair-led Labour multiple times as well as the Iraq Aggression. The BBC doesn't do endorsements. The Independent opposed the Iraq debacle from the beginning.
This commentator doesn't see it as a coincidence.
Neither do I.
It's too bad he focused only on media critical of him. His analysis otherwise might have been credible.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Sucking air
In one of the more idiotic moves of an often idiotic organization, the international soccer federation FIFA has banned all international matches from being held at an altitude of more than 8,200 feet. The ban primarily hurts Bolivia and Ecuador, but also affects Colombia (who can't play in their capital city) and Mexico. The decision outraged most Latin American soccer federations.
FIFA's claims that the high altitude harmed the health of visiting players who weren't acclamated. In reality, FIFA caved in to the demands of Latin America's two most influential federations, Brazil and Argentina. These federations didn't like their precious stars, more used to Madird and Milan, to have to travel to the sticks. Brazil and Argentina didn't like the fact that they actually lost games in Quito and La Paz and want to strip their fellow South Americans of home field advantage.
FIFA's rationale is a joke and everyone knows it. High altitude is hardly the only risk. Mexico holds most of its home matches in the choking pollution of Mexico City; ex-US national teamer Eric Wynalda described a 1997 game in the Mexican capital, "I once saw Cobi Jones cough up something that looked like a brownie." Honduras holds some home contests in a tropical steam bath known as San Pedro Sula. I guess 'health conscious' FIFA doesn't care that Costa Rican fans have thrown bags of urine at American players on visits to San Jose.
FIFA will ban venues based on altitude, but don't seem to be particularly bothered by racist abuse or fan violence. But I guess some federations are more equal than others.
But FIFA is hardly the only soccer organization prone to politicization and corruption. Consider the case of CONCACAF, the governing body for soccer in North and Central America and the Caribbean. Jack Warner has been president of CONCACAF since 1990.
Just for the heck of it, Google the following:
CONCACAF Jack Warner corruption scandals
and see how many pages of results you get.
A good concise account of Warner's sleaze can be found at this article from the Trinidad Business Guardian.
Then again, anyone who's seen the state of officiating in CONCACAF matches already knows that competence isn't exactly a priority in the organization.
(Exhibit A: one of the linesmen in the US-Trinidad & Tobago incorrectly signaled offside on the US four different times in the first half of Saturday's game. Only one of them was even remotely close. This constitutes continental championship caliber officiating in CONCACAF)
FIFA's claims that the high altitude harmed the health of visiting players who weren't acclamated. In reality, FIFA caved in to the demands of Latin America's two most influential federations, Brazil and Argentina. These federations didn't like their precious stars, more used to Madird and Milan, to have to travel to the sticks. Brazil and Argentina didn't like the fact that they actually lost games in Quito and La Paz and want to strip their fellow South Americans of home field advantage.
FIFA's rationale is a joke and everyone knows it. High altitude is hardly the only risk. Mexico holds most of its home matches in the choking pollution of Mexico City; ex-US national teamer Eric Wynalda described a 1997 game in the Mexican capital, "I once saw Cobi Jones cough up something that looked like a brownie." Honduras holds some home contests in a tropical steam bath known as San Pedro Sula. I guess 'health conscious' FIFA doesn't care that Costa Rican fans have thrown bags of urine at American players on visits to San Jose.
FIFA will ban venues based on altitude, but don't seem to be particularly bothered by racist abuse or fan violence. But I guess some federations are more equal than others.
But FIFA is hardly the only soccer organization prone to politicization and corruption. Consider the case of CONCACAF, the governing body for soccer in North and Central America and the Caribbean. Jack Warner has been president of CONCACAF since 1990.
Just for the heck of it, Google the following:
CONCACAF Jack Warner corruption scandals
and see how many pages of results you get.
A good concise account of Warner's sleaze can be found at this article from the Trinidad Business Guardian.
Then again, anyone who's seen the state of officiating in CONCACAF matches already knows that competence isn't exactly a priority in the organization.
(Exhibit A: one of the linesmen in the US-Trinidad & Tobago incorrectly signaled offside on the US four different times in the first half of Saturday's game. Only one of them was even remotely close. This constitutes continental championship caliber officiating in CONCACAF)
Monday, June 11, 2007
Class
As some of you may know, I coach youth soccer. A few days ago, one of my players was injured during the game. It wasn't intentional. Just one of those accidents that sometimes happens at higher level soccer. Anyway, I received an email earlier today from the other team's coach inquiring about the state of my player.
You often read tales in the media of players, coaches and parents who are, to say the least, badly behaved. Sadly, I've experienced such situations myself. Sometimes we're so inundated with the idiots, that we forget there are many good people out there as well. It's easy to succomb to corrosive cynicism. But it's nice to be reminded that there are still coaches with a lot of class working with young people.
You often read tales in the media of players, coaches and parents who are, to say the least, badly behaved. Sadly, I've experienced such situations myself. Sometimes we're so inundated with the idiots, that we forget there are many good people out there as well. It's easy to succomb to corrosive cynicism. But it's nice to be reminded that there are still coaches with a lot of class working with young people.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Ralph Nader pays local visit
Matt's Totally Biased Commentary offers a good write-up of public citizen Ralph Nader's recent visit to Glens Falls. He also offers rare praise to both the local daily Post-Star newspaper and the regional NPR affiliate and liberal establishment radio station WAMC.
He mentions the abhorrent lawsuit filed against him and his 2004 presidential running mate Peter Camejo by Pennsylvania Democrats. The progressives were incomprehensibly ordered to pay the costs of the lawsuit because some of Nader's petition signatures were ruled invalid, hardly a sign of malfeasence as anyone who's tried to collect signatures or is familiar with electoral law will know. This was only one of many lawsuits filed by Democrats [sic] trying to sabotage the Nader-Camejo campaign. Yes, these were the same Democrats, not to be confused with democrats, spent four years snivelling about alleged electoral disenfranchisement and 'making every vote count' following the 2000 elections.
One of Nader's visits was to speak with students at the local high school. One thing that struck many was how respectfully Nader treated the students and how he spoke to them as young citizens rather than little kids. Instead of patronizing them, he challenged them to become socially engaged and to not be complacent or discouraged.
I think this is one of the fundamental differences between a true public servant and an ordinary politician. Nader didn't mouth the saccharine "You're the future" stuff which is well-meaning but vague to the point of meaninglessness. Instead, he told students, "You're the present, so get to work." He challenged them instead of fluffing their egos. In reports I've received, both from the press and from several students I know personally who attended his Q&A session, Nader's tone impressed many in the audience.
One of the most telling comments comes from a student I know who's the son of a local city councilman. He told me, "I agreed with what he had to say but I still don't think he should've run for president." Naturally, this begs the question: why not?
Which of course shows that as persuasive as Nader was, there remains work to do.
He mentions the abhorrent lawsuit filed against him and his 2004 presidential running mate Peter Camejo by Pennsylvania Democrats. The progressives were incomprehensibly ordered to pay the costs of the lawsuit because some of Nader's petition signatures were ruled invalid, hardly a sign of malfeasence as anyone who's tried to collect signatures or is familiar with electoral law will know. This was only one of many lawsuits filed by Democrats [sic] trying to sabotage the Nader-Camejo campaign. Yes, these were the same Democrats, not to be confused with democrats, spent four years snivelling about alleged electoral disenfranchisement and 'making every vote count' following the 2000 elections.
One of Nader's visits was to speak with students at the local high school. One thing that struck many was how respectfully Nader treated the students and how he spoke to them as young citizens rather than little kids. Instead of patronizing them, he challenged them to become socially engaged and to not be complacent or discouraged.
I think this is one of the fundamental differences between a true public servant and an ordinary politician. Nader didn't mouth the saccharine "You're the future" stuff which is well-meaning but vague to the point of meaninglessness. Instead, he told students, "You're the present, so get to work." He challenged them instead of fluffing their egos. In reports I've received, both from the press and from several students I know personally who attended his Q&A session, Nader's tone impressed many in the audience.
One of the most telling comments comes from a student I know who's the son of a local city councilman. He told me, "I agreed with what he had to say but I still don't think he should've run for president." Naturally, this begs the question: why not?
Which of course shows that as persuasive as Nader was, there remains work to do.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Transcription journalism
One of the topics I write about quite a bit is the news media. It's obviously very influential in shaping our perception of local, national and international events. While hardly homogeneous, certain trends seem to prevail in the mainstream US news media. One that I've written about before is the difference between objectivity (the mainstream journalistic ideal) and neutral journalism (the mainstream journalistic reality).
Essentially, mainstream journalism is now less about investigation and skepticism and more about transcription; less 60 Minutes and more CSPAN. The typical wire service or TV news piece on social or political issues follows the same formula: intro, standard liberal politician point of view, standard conservative politician point of view, conclusion. Once in a while, they'll include a quote from a university professor, think tank fellow or some other 'expert.'
Rarely do mainstream journalists include the point of view of 'non-standard' political figure such as Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Rarely do they bother interviewing anyone outside of Washington's political elite; after all, it's not like federal policies affect states, counties or municipalities. Rarely do they call the 'standard' liberal or conservative on their obfuscation or deception. Why? Because then they'll be accused by hysterical activists of 'bias.'
Common Dreams has a good essay on how journalism morphed into transcription. Though it doesn't mention a key fact in the press' rising meakness: increased consolidation of media outlets in the hands of risk-averse multinational corporations.
Then again, some members of the 'unbiased' media don't let facts interfere with their editorializing. A good example is CNN's 'news' anchor Lou Dobbs, who relentlessly
pushes a populist anti-immigrant, protectionist line. Dobbs not only cited a debunked scientific study to further his anti-immigrant crusade, but refused to back down when shown that the study was wrong. He waved away questions about the study's accuracy with a dismissive, "If we reported it, it's a fact." No surprise that the self-appointed watchdogs don't like being watched.
Another good example is New York Post columnist Ralph Peters. Now, I know that opinion columns have different editorial standards than purported news pieces; and at least Peters, unlike Dobbs, is overt about his trying to be neither objective nor neutral. But even a paper with New York Post's standards shouldn't allow its columnists to outright lie.
In this column, Peters slams the group Human Rights Watch. He wrote:
After the Fatah al-Islam terrorists holed up in a Palestinian camp carried out a wave of bombings, bank robberies and assassinations, Lebanon's struggling democratic government ordered its army to stop them. The Palestinian refugees themselves applauded the army's efforts, stating that few of the terrorists were local and most were fanatics from other Muslim states. The terrorists ruled with the gun and sought to enforce Sharia law. Their victims want them gone.
The response from Human Rights Watch [HRW]? Ignore the crimes of the terrorists and criticize the Lebanese army for attacking them "indiscriminately."
I was astonished that they would do such a thing so I decided to check it out the HRW report myself.
The report's very title included implicit criticism of the group: "Lebanon: Fighting at Refugee Camp Kills Civilians -- Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam Must Protect Civilians in Nahr al-Bared."
Additionally, HRW's spokesman explicitly said, "Fatah al-Islam militants must not hide among civilians... The Lebanese army and the Fatah al-Islam fighters should establish a safe passage to allow the civilians to leave the camp and let humanitarian supplies for civilians in."
The report added that: Using civilians to shield one’s own forces from attack is a serious violation of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said. Placing forces or weapons in the vicinity of heavily populated areas can also result in violations of international humanitarian law.
This is a pretty odd way to 'ignore' them.
Yet another example of why I'm skeptical of paraphrasing.
Peters also claims, "There are real human-rights tragedies unfolding every day, from Harare to Havana, but activists don't give a damn about the average Joe or Miguel or Ali."
Even a cursory look at the websites of activist organizations like HRW and Amnesty International shows that this is still more b.s.
Like many others on the far right, Peters seems to think that anything the US government does should be immune from criticism because somewhere else, someone is doing something worse.
I'll remember that assinine argument the next time I try to rob a bank.
Essentially, mainstream journalism is now less about investigation and skepticism and more about transcription; less 60 Minutes and more CSPAN. The typical wire service or TV news piece on social or political issues follows the same formula: intro, standard liberal politician point of view, standard conservative politician point of view, conclusion. Once in a while, they'll include a quote from a university professor, think tank fellow or some other 'expert.'
Rarely do mainstream journalists include the point of view of 'non-standard' political figure such as Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. Rarely do they bother interviewing anyone outside of Washington's political elite; after all, it's not like federal policies affect states, counties or municipalities. Rarely do they call the 'standard' liberal or conservative on their obfuscation or deception. Why? Because then they'll be accused by hysterical activists of 'bias.'
Common Dreams has a good essay on how journalism morphed into transcription. Though it doesn't mention a key fact in the press' rising meakness: increased consolidation of media outlets in the hands of risk-averse multinational corporations.
Then again, some members of the 'unbiased' media don't let facts interfere with their editorializing. A good example is CNN's 'news' anchor Lou Dobbs, who relentlessly
pushes a populist anti-immigrant, protectionist line. Dobbs not only cited a debunked scientific study to further his anti-immigrant crusade, but refused to back down when shown that the study was wrong. He waved away questions about the study's accuracy with a dismissive, "If we reported it, it's a fact." No surprise that the self-appointed watchdogs don't like being watched.
Another good example is New York Post columnist Ralph Peters. Now, I know that opinion columns have different editorial standards than purported news pieces; and at least Peters, unlike Dobbs, is overt about his trying to be neither objective nor neutral. But even a paper with New York Post's standards shouldn't allow its columnists to outright lie.
In this column, Peters slams the group Human Rights Watch. He wrote:
After the Fatah al-Islam terrorists holed up in a Palestinian camp carried out a wave of bombings, bank robberies and assassinations, Lebanon's struggling democratic government ordered its army to stop them. The Palestinian refugees themselves applauded the army's efforts, stating that few of the terrorists were local and most were fanatics from other Muslim states. The terrorists ruled with the gun and sought to enforce Sharia law. Their victims want them gone.
The response from Human Rights Watch [HRW]? Ignore the crimes of the terrorists and criticize the Lebanese army for attacking them "indiscriminately."
I was astonished that they would do such a thing so I decided to check it out the HRW report myself.
The report's very title included implicit criticism of the group: "Lebanon: Fighting at Refugee Camp Kills Civilians -- Lebanese Army and Fatah al-Islam Must Protect Civilians in Nahr al-Bared."
Additionally, HRW's spokesman explicitly said, "Fatah al-Islam militants must not hide among civilians... The Lebanese army and the Fatah al-Islam fighters should establish a safe passage to allow the civilians to leave the camp and let humanitarian supplies for civilians in."
The report added that: Using civilians to shield one’s own forces from attack is a serious violation of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch said. Placing forces or weapons in the vicinity of heavily populated areas can also result in violations of international humanitarian law.
This is a pretty odd way to 'ignore' them.
Yet another example of why I'm skeptical of paraphrasing.
Peters also claims, "There are real human-rights tragedies unfolding every day, from Harare to Havana, but activists don't give a damn about the average Joe or Miguel or Ali."
Even a cursory look at the websites of activist organizations like HRW and Amnesty International shows that this is still more b.s.
Like many others on the far right, Peters seems to think that anything the US government does should be immune from criticism because somewhere else, someone is doing something worse.
I'll remember that assinine argument the next time I try to rob a bank.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Muslim countries more opposed to terrorism than Americans
The Christian Science Monitor had a good article on the myth of Muslim support for terror. It explored a study by University of Maryland's Program on International Public Attitudes. It found that almost twice as many Pakistanis than Americans opposed wanton violence against civilians than Americans.
86 of people in Pakistan, seen as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, felt that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" were "never justified."
74 percent of people in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, agreed.
Only 46 percent of Americans felt the same way.
By contrast, 24 percent of Americans felt that such attacks were "often or sometimes justified."
Furthermore, hard core ideologues in this country perpetuate the myth that not only are Muslims more predisposed to supporting wanton violence than 'civilized' westerners, but also the myth that Muslims ignore the good deeds done by Americans.
The study found that 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries.
The article pointed out that their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.
86 of people in Pakistan, seen as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, felt that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" were "never justified."
74 percent of people in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, agreed.
Only 46 percent of Americans felt the same way.
By contrast, 24 percent of Americans felt that such attacks were "often or sometimes justified."
Furthermore, hard core ideologues in this country perpetuate the myth that not only are Muslims more predisposed to supporting wanton violence than 'civilized' westerners, but also the myth that Muslims ignore the good deeds done by Americans.
The study found that 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries.
The article pointed out that their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Decency hijacked
Every year, I go to my town's Memorial Day parade and ceremony. It's something I've always done. When I was younger, I went because I was in the school band and we marched during the parade. Now, I go by choice. I'm a big fan of traditions (incidentally, I'm also reading Ralph Nader's excellent new book The Seventeen Traditions). And this is one of our great community traditions.
The Memorial Day parade is one of the things that just about everyone in my town participates in, either as a marcher or a watcher. The ceremony is much less well-attended, which is a bit surprising considering how gung-ho people around here have been about military service in general and the present war in Iraq in particular. Although I am against both this war and militarism in general, I still go the ceremony.
The last few years, I've started to wonder why. Since 2002, the ceremony has been hijacked by those with a conservative ideological agenda. Some of the speeches still talk about honor and sacrifice. But many more talk about fear and enemies lurking and how we need to kill them before they kill us. Many of the talking points seem taken directly from some neo-con think tank's website.
The Memorial Day ceremony should be a sacred affair that is respectful of those who were killed in military service. The one in my town has been turned into an ideological pep rally. And yet this 'supports the troops'?!
I believe Monday's ceremony in my town had three original speeches. Two were from students who won an essay contest. Since the contest is sponsored by, I believe, the local VFW, you know what kind of speech is likely to win. The first student speech was a prototype of that. It talked about freedom and liberty and how our brave troops are fighting the evil enemy who want to destroy our freedoms and how they must prevail and crush crush crush. Not much different from the kind of speech the president might give.
The second student speech was even more menacing. It essentially called on the audience to wage a Christian holy war against the Muslim infidels who want to destroy the American way of life.
The first student speech merely made me roll my eyes. The second student speech made me want to scream in outrage.
The keynote speech also played up the fearmongering aspect that we're so used to in addresses nowadays. It talked about how great America was because we weren't content with giving our own people democracy and freedom. We were great because we used our military to shove our way of life down the throats of other people, whether they want it or not.
Huzzah!
I didn't clap at any of these speeches. The only words worth listening to were those of the clergy member invited who praised the service of not only the troops, but of diplomats, humanitarian workers and others who contribute to improving humanity.
The master of ceremonies read a poem, which many of you may have read. I will not post it here but it says that we owe freedom of the press not to journalists but to soldiers; freedom of religion not to priests, but to soldiers; etc. Basically, it says that we owe all of our freedoms to soldiers and no one else so we should get down and kiss their boots.
I have always been extremely offended by this poem, as I think it's antithetical to the American spirit. In our country, we are all responsible for defending our freedoms. It wasn't a professional army that rose up against the British, but a group of ordniary men defending what they felt was right. Protecting our rights is the responsibility of all citizens, not just those in khaki.
Giving soldiers sole responsibility and credit for our way of life allows us to abdicate our own obligations as citizens. What scares me most about the sentiments in this poem is this very simple fact: if the soldiers gave us our freedoms, they can just as easily take them away.
Soldiers help protect our freedoms. But they are not the only ones. Honor the troops, but not by slapping in the face other engaged citizens.
When this poem was read, I turned my back in protest.
But I shouldn't have to. I shouldn't have to bit my tongue during a fearmongering speech at what should be a solemn ceremony. I shouldn't have to turn my back in protest at an outrageous poem. This ceremony should be solely dedicated to honor the sacrifices of deceased servicemen, not to advance Rudy Giuliani's campaign themes. This is not merely tacky, but profane. And it disgusts me that no one else seems to be bothered by this.
Then again, given attendance at the ceremony, maybe others are making their displeasure known with their feet.
I keep going to the ceremony even as it's been increasingly hijacked by militaristic sentiments, rather than reverent ones. I feel is important to show my respect DESPITE the speakers; despite the increasing divisionism and decreasing decency. I feel like I didn't want to abdicate a perfect noble holiday to the militarists. In addition to paying my respects and to the tradition aspect, I feel my presence there is a little jab at those who would claim that patriotism and honor only belongs to the right-wing or to supporters of this particular war of choice.
Each year, I ask myself if this is worth subjecting myself to the increasing vitriol and divisionism. So far, the answer has always been yes. But each year, the answer becomes less clear.
The Memorial Day parade is one of the things that just about everyone in my town participates in, either as a marcher or a watcher. The ceremony is much less well-attended, which is a bit surprising considering how gung-ho people around here have been about military service in general and the present war in Iraq in particular. Although I am against both this war and militarism in general, I still go the ceremony.
The last few years, I've started to wonder why. Since 2002, the ceremony has been hijacked by those with a conservative ideological agenda. Some of the speeches still talk about honor and sacrifice. But many more talk about fear and enemies lurking and how we need to kill them before they kill us. Many of the talking points seem taken directly from some neo-con think tank's website.
The Memorial Day ceremony should be a sacred affair that is respectful of those who were killed in military service. The one in my town has been turned into an ideological pep rally. And yet this 'supports the troops'?!
I believe Monday's ceremony in my town had three original speeches. Two were from students who won an essay contest. Since the contest is sponsored by, I believe, the local VFW, you know what kind of speech is likely to win. The first student speech was a prototype of that. It talked about freedom and liberty and how our brave troops are fighting the evil enemy who want to destroy our freedoms and how they must prevail and crush crush crush. Not much different from the kind of speech the president might give.
The second student speech was even more menacing. It essentially called on the audience to wage a Christian holy war against the Muslim infidels who want to destroy the American way of life.
The first student speech merely made me roll my eyes. The second student speech made me want to scream in outrage.
The keynote speech also played up the fearmongering aspect that we're so used to in addresses nowadays. It talked about how great America was because we weren't content with giving our own people democracy and freedom. We were great because we used our military to shove our way of life down the throats of other people, whether they want it or not.
Huzzah!
I didn't clap at any of these speeches. The only words worth listening to were those of the clergy member invited who praised the service of not only the troops, but of diplomats, humanitarian workers and others who contribute to improving humanity.
The master of ceremonies read a poem, which many of you may have read. I will not post it here but it says that we owe freedom of the press not to journalists but to soldiers; freedom of religion not to priests, but to soldiers; etc. Basically, it says that we owe all of our freedoms to soldiers and no one else so we should get down and kiss their boots.
I have always been extremely offended by this poem, as I think it's antithetical to the American spirit. In our country, we are all responsible for defending our freedoms. It wasn't a professional army that rose up against the British, but a group of ordniary men defending what they felt was right. Protecting our rights is the responsibility of all citizens, not just those in khaki.
Giving soldiers sole responsibility and credit for our way of life allows us to abdicate our own obligations as citizens. What scares me most about the sentiments in this poem is this very simple fact: if the soldiers gave us our freedoms, they can just as easily take them away.
Soldiers help protect our freedoms. But they are not the only ones. Honor the troops, but not by slapping in the face other engaged citizens.
When this poem was read, I turned my back in protest.
But I shouldn't have to. I shouldn't have to bit my tongue during a fearmongering speech at what should be a solemn ceremony. I shouldn't have to turn my back in protest at an outrageous poem. This ceremony should be solely dedicated to honor the sacrifices of deceased servicemen, not to advance Rudy Giuliani's campaign themes. This is not merely tacky, but profane. And it disgusts me that no one else seems to be bothered by this.
Then again, given attendance at the ceremony, maybe others are making their displeasure known with their feet.
I keep going to the ceremony even as it's been increasingly hijacked by militaristic sentiments, rather than reverent ones. I feel is important to show my respect DESPITE the speakers; despite the increasing divisionism and decreasing decency. I feel like I didn't want to abdicate a perfect noble holiday to the militarists. In addition to paying my respects and to the tradition aspect, I feel my presence there is a little jab at those who would claim that patriotism and honor only belongs to the right-wing or to supporters of this particular war of choice.
Each year, I ask myself if this is worth subjecting myself to the increasing vitriol and divisionism. So far, the answer has always been yes. But each year, the answer becomes less clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)