Amber

A Norman Rockwell July 4th

July 4, 2008 | July 4th, america, american ideals, baseball, democracy

I spent last Sunday night in a Normal Rockwell painting and, for me, it was the perfect July 4th event. It could not have been more American, could not have represented more precisely what the men and women who gave their lives, and are remembered on this day, fought for. This evening was my homage to America.

Of course it had to do with baseball. Baseball IS America, inseparable from the American identity. The old Chevrolet Commercial, “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet” says it all.

It was the seventh inning of a baseball game between the Minnesota Twin class A farm team, the St. Paul Saints, and the Fort Worth Cats. The Cats were managed by Wayne Terwilliger, a genuine American hero (see here and here). A Marine, who fought on Iwo Jima, during WWII, he played, coached and managed baseball for 52 years. Part of that career was coaching and managing the Saints, so this night was dedicated to him.

It was the seventh inning of the game, when I had my realization that this night was special. The Saints were being trounced, 11-2 (later to lose 13-2) by the Cats. The team management was handing out “rally flags,” which were blue, polyethylene blow-ups that sported a flag that said “St. Paul Saints.” Of course, it took a few milliseconds for people to realize that they could use the blow-up flagpoles to bonk each other, and you could see sudden commotions where friends would attack each other with these things. I was surrounded by freckle-faced young boys, with baseball gloves, baseball caps, and that look of awe on a kid’s face when they are imagining themselves on that field, shagging flies and whacking the ball out of the park.

It was those freckle-faced kids that got me thinking of Norman Rockwell. America is about traditions, and it is in these small-town events where American traditions are most evident. You do not find them in the cities; there are too many people for common traditions to develop. In this small ball park, which seated no more than a little bit over 6000 people, we were all bound by the traditions of baseball, specific to this ball park, but repeated, in an endless variety, in small-town ball parks all over the country.

There were so many little traditions spread throughout the game; the team mascot was a pig, and this baby pig was brought out on a leash at the beginning of each inning, dressed in a different outfit — a tutu, one inning, pink ears and a dress on another. To understand what this means, one has to go back to the early history of St. Paul, where it was called “Pig Eye,” named after Pierre “Pig’s Eye” Parrant, a French Canadian who sold whiskey upstream from Fort Snelling, at a trading post which later became St. Paul. I don’t know how many people in the stands knew this, but the pig was a fixture at Saints games. It gets bigger and bigger as the season goes by. I do not know what happens to it at the end of the season (they start each season with a baby pig), and do not know if it has any connection to the pig roast that occurs at the end of the season.

Then there are the trains. Just behind the Left Field fence is a train track. All during the game, trains go by; and each time one does, the announcer says, “train.” The crowd says “train.” If there are two trains, on both tracks, the announcer says, “double train” and everyone repeats it.

All of this bound people at the park together, and made them part of a greater fabric which is America. I could have seen the same theme 50 years ago, with minor variations; and Norman Rockwell could have been in the stands, painting the kids on the field, before the game, playing catch with the Saints ball players 50 years ago as he could have today. It was as American as one could possibly get, and I was in awe, at that point, at the thought that I was IN this painting.

So, God bless Wayne Terwilliger, the war hero who came home to baseball, and devoted his life to making our enjoyment. God bless all those eager young men who never made it to adulthood, buried in some unknown land, or in the fields of snow-like tombstones that are so ever present in our towns and cities. Your death did have meaning. I weep for every one of you, and am grateful that your sacrifice enabled these freckle-faced kids to sit in the stands and be part of a great American experience.

No Comments »

Brooke Bennet and Jessica’s Law

July 4, 2008 | america, american ideals, child support

I was really upset by the story of the 12 year old girl in Vermont, Brooke Bennet, who disappeared, was found dead, and for whom it was discovered she had been betrayed by her family to a sex ring. I wrote to every outlet I could find in Vermont, government, newspapers, tourism bureaus, etc expressing my outrage that Vermont had not passed legislation that would have made it easier to identify child predators.

I got a nice letter back from the Lieutenant General of Vermont, via his assistant, Mary Hanson, and I wanted to post my outraged letter, and her replies.

Me:

As a former resident of Massachusetts, I have to write to express my outrage at Vermont’s attitude towards the abuse of their children.

 

In 2006, Bill O’Reilly said, “suggested that his listeners “visit [Vermont] at your discretion,” because it is a “hopeless, hopeless state” that refuses to “protect the kids” from child molesters. O’Reilly stated that Vermont “is gonna lead the league” among the “six to 10 states” that won’t “pass any laws to protect the kids.”"

 

Obviously he was right. Michael Jacques, the man arrested for killing her, had been in Vermont jails on a sentence of 9 YEARS for the brutal rape of another girl…and was let out early, for good behaviour. Now, he is in jail, again…but his niece is dead, at his hands.

 

I, as well as many other Americans, are ashamed of you, Vermont. You are not protecting your children. I wouldn’t bring mine there.

 

> Thank you for your email.
>
> Lt. Governor Dubie first called for the enactment of Jessica’s Law in
> Vermont in January 2006, he has repeated that call, and will continue to
> press for its passage, along with passage of a civil confinement law
> that would extend prison stays for certain high-risk offenders who have
> served their terms without successfully completing sex-offender
> treatment, and who are known to be likely to re-offend.
>
> Lt. Governor Dubie shares your shock and outrage at what has happened to
> Brooke Bennett.
>
> Respectfully,
> Martha
>
> Martha Hanson
> Lieutenant Governor’s Chief of Staff

(MONPELIER) — With the release of details this week about the abduction and death of 12-year-old Braintree, Vermont girl Brooke Bennett, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie today renewed his call for the Vermont legislature to pass Jessica’s Law, and to pass a civil confinement law that would extend prison stays for certain high-risk offenders who have served their terms without successfully completing sex-offender treatment, and who are known to be likely to re-offend.

He also called for a thorough investigation of Vermont’s laws concerning child sex offenders.

Dubie said, “Last Thursday night, I attended a vigil in Randolph for Brooke Bennett. I hugged her grieving mother. Vermont failed a 12-year-old girl who is now dead. There’s something wrong here.”

He went on, “When someone dies in a plane crash, we recover the black box, and investigate thoroughly to learn what went wrong, so we can prevent the same thing from happening again. We owe nothing less to Brooke Bennett, her family, and all the children in our state.

“In January 2006 and again in May 2007,” he continued, “I called upon our legislature to enact Jessica’s Law. Today, I renew that call.”

No Comments »

War and the Next President

June 29, 2008 | Bush, Middle East, america, american ideals, democracy, democrat, election, iraq, islamism, islamofascism, jihad, republican, war, war on terror, wmd

There is a saying in Sports, most especially in college sports, that “it is not how you win that is important, it is how you play the game.” Sports is supposed to teach sportsmanship, the idea of being fair, having respect for one’s opponent, and being gracious in winning or losing. The idea is that one can carry these lessons into life, being fair to ones competitors, having respect for those who work for you, and for whom you are working against, and being gracious, if you win or lose in life. I doubt if anyone would argue that this is not a wonderful ideal for everyone to follow.

Sadly, though, if one looks closely, winning like a scoundrel is very often far more lucrative than losing like a gentleman. The winner of a sporting event is invariably remembered, no matter how he or she won…while the loser is, more likely than not, forgotten, no matter how gentlemanly the loser played the game. In sports, as in life, winning is, in fact, everything. Losing accounts for very little

Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments »

Strategic Victory In Iraq

June 28, 2008 | Middle East, afghanistan, al qaeda, al qaida, bin laden, gitmo, iran, iraq, iraq, iraq government, islamism, islamofascism, israel, jihad, pakistan, palestinian, saddam, sunni, war on terror, wmd

In the debate over the tactical war in Iraq, few people want to acknowledge that there were serious strategic reasons for ending the Saddam regime. Richard Fernandez neatly summarizes the goals, gains and dangers of losing in our efforts in the region.

One of the major reasons why it was always doubtful that America would withdraw entirely and relocate, as John Murtha once suggested in a moment of absentmindedness, to Okinawa, is that the region is a strategic focus of national and world interest. An Iraq in chaos or exporting subversion would pull America into the region, rather than permit a ramping down of overt military presence. Moreover, the eventual drawdown of US forces in Germany was made possible, not merely by the cultural differences between the Germans and the Arabs, but by the changes in the strategic situation in the region. The US didn’t stay in Germany until the Germans were pacified. They stayed until the Eastern Bloc collapsed. Perhaps one of the worst outcomes of the partisan over on Iraq has been to dissociate the campaign from its larger strategic aims.

The biggest potential gains of the campaign (in my view) have been to put the damper on the threat of WMD development in Iraq and Syria, create an alternative model of governance for the Shi’ite arc and effect the discredit of al Qaeda. These gains present a number of opportunities which should be exploited by future administrations. The entire debate over future US facilities in Iraq should revolve around how such facilities should be configured in order to develop these strategic gains and not around cultural comparisons between the Germans and Arabs. Yet even so, a commentator writing in 1946 and looking back at the century of horror and mayhem that convulsed Europe — an history which contained multiple genocides and ethnic cleansings (the Ukranian Famine, the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, the Scramble for Africa) and two of the most destructive wars in history — might have been forgiven for having doubts over whether the European was all that much better than the Arab. Now hardly a day goes by without some conservative commentator observing that “America is from Mars and Europe is from Venus”. Who would have said that in 1946? The fictional Harry Lime, closer to the events in memory than we are today, had much to say about Cuckoo Clocks. But he was wrong. Europe has shown that it is more than capable of peace. Maybe the Arabs are too.

No Comments »

The Role of People in a Democracy

June 23, 2008 | america, american ideals, democracy

Democracy is based on the notion that people are best served if they are involved with decisions that affect their lives. It is a wonderful, enlightened notion. Everyone wants to have control over their lives. Sadly, this ideal has been tarnished from the very beginnings, tossed upon the rocks of the one fatal flaw that most people share; we trust ourselves, but not the other guy. Thus, even with our American experiment in Democracy, our founders distrusted the ‘mob’ sufficiently to close normal people off from the every day functions of government; we vote on representatives to take care of our business.

 This common theme has divided us up until the present. One of the constant tensions in our political arena is between those who seek a broader role for the Federal government, because they do not trust the people to decide for themselves, over those who believe that the more people have a choice in the decisions being made, the better those decisions will be.

 Someone on a political bulletin board, during a discussion on gay marriage, made the point to me that interracial marriage was declared Constitutional by the 13^th and 14^th amendment. Checking the wording of these amendments, I could see nothing in the wording to indicate that they had anything to do with marriage, and I answered him that, if the Supreme Court did, indeed, make that ruling based on those amendments, it was wrong. Not that I am a lawyer, mind you, but I do believe that laws should be interpreted according to what they say, not what we want them to say…and the Constitution says nothing about marriage.

 I further made the point that the States should, certainly, have the right to determine who they want to marry and who they do not want to marry. While I do not endorse qualifications based on the dubious notion that the color of one’s skin makes a difference in whether or not one can be a good marriage partner, the value of a Democracy is the defense of unpopular decisions, and the States have the right to make that distinction.

 Here we see the crux of the conflict. Should the 13^th Amendment be interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the notion that the freed slaves also should have the right to marry whomever they wish, despite the fact that no such wording exists in the Amendment? It is of benefit to society to grant the same rights to freed slaves as to all other citizens. Shouldn’t the Federal government impose this interpretation on all citizens of the United States? Or is it no business of the Federal government to tell the States what to do at all? Do the people have the right to decide for themselves, or should they be told what to do by a strong Federal government? More basically, do we trust people to, eventually, do the right thing, or do they need to be told to do the right thing?

  Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments »

American Goliath

June 22, 2008 | america, american ideals, democracy

In his The Case For Goliath: How America Acts As The World’s Government in the Twenty-first Century, Michael Mandelbaum suggests a different role for the United States than that of ‘imperialist’ or empire, or even “the world’s policeman.” Mandelbaum suggests that the United States is, more and more, functioning as the government of the world.

 It has been fashionable, since the beginning of the 21^st century, to describe the United States as an empire. This is because of the interests and influence the United States has in almost every area of the world; we have troops in as much as 150 countries, depending on how you count. We are responsible for 30% of the goods delivered in the world, a number which cannot be matched, even closely by any other country. Our cultural influence is overwhelming, our clothes styles set the norm for the rest of the world…I could go on, but the influence of the United States on the rest of the world is close to overpowering.

This, of course, makes many people nervous, and the use of the term ‘empire’ is not used in a complementary sense. It is generally used to demonstrate a purposeful attempt by the United States to dominate and control the rest of the world, in the manner of a Hitler, or Alexander. There is concern, of course, for local customs and traditions, as people try to emulate the United States. There is concern about political domination, as the United States uses its forces to impose its will on nations which the United States considers a threat. There is a, justifiable, fear of loss of political controls by nations which are proud of their independence.

 The term empire, however, implies three characteristics which the relationship between the United States and the rest of the world lack. First, it implies an unequal relationship between two parties, one being dominant over another. Second, it implies coercion, the dominant State forcing the subordinate State to work for the dominant state’s interest. Third, it implies one culture’s domination over another; France’s domination over Vietnam and Algeria would have been an Empire, since Vietnam and Algeria had radically different racial and political characteristics than did France…no one terms French Control over its own, French provinces as an empire.

 The United States has not, except in very rare circumstances, attempted to dominate other countries by military force. In fact, even in the exceptions, such as Haiti and Bosnia, the Untied States has sought to share its domination with other nations, and divest the responsibility to the countries for which it has assume responsibility as quickly as possible. Instead of putting up puppet governments in Germany, Japan and Iraq, the United States formed Democratic governments, removing the pernicious influences of the megalomaniacal tyrants who controlled those countries previously, and putting the power in the hands of the people. That is not the characteristic of an empire-building State.

 The reason why the United States has achieved this dominance world-wide is because the United States ‘s economic and political systems have enabled it to utilized the full power and ability of all of its citizens. Any citizen has the possibility of achieving economic success if they have the imagination, and the luck to reach the top of their endeavor. Such opportunity is far less in those competing societies.

So…what IS the role of the United States in the world? Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments »

This Week in National Security

June 21, 2008 | Middle East, al qaeda, al qaida, gitmo, islamism, islamofascism, war, war on terror

During this week, two events occurred which had serious effects on our national security. One, the Supreme Court Decision that foreign nationals caught on a foreign battlefield without uniforms or national identity are due the same legal rights as American citizens, was a blow to our ability to conduct war. The other, though, an agreement on our surveillance laws, could make this week a general plus for our national security. First, the Supreme Court ruling.

In a 5-4 ruling, on June 13, the United States Supreme Court ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. The ruling followed political lines, with the most Liberal judges, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

The ruling was a travesty, ignoring the normal useages of war, treating war as if it were simply another violation of civil law. It was based on the dubious ruling that Guantanamo Bay is U.S. territory, and thus anyone held there is subject to United States Law. In fact, we lease the Guantanomo bay from Cuba; it is Cuban territory, not American, and under military law, not civilian. The ruling will probably be overruled, in the future.

This ruling makes fighting the war more difficult, but it is not a disaster. For one thing, we should probably kill these people, in the future, rather than risk a U.S. court setting them free. Guerrillas are not covered under any international law and are traditionally killed rather than bringing them to trial. There is no reason to treat these people any better. For another, we can close Gitmo, and hold these prisoners overseas. There are ways around it.

In addition, the positive effects of the second event, the agreement on foreign surveillance, will probably trump any negative effects of the SC ruling. The value of Gitmo, of course, is its use as a means of gathering intelligence intelligence, and this ruling will make gathering that intelligence easier. Any loss from Gitmo will be more than made up by this agreement.

To quote Andrew McCarthy,

Here is the bottom line: Our intelligence agencies will once again have authority to conduct aggressive monitoring of foreign powers, including terrorist organizations, which threaten the United States. In particular, this will be the case overseas — that is, when foreigners located outside our borders communicate with each other. The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency will essentially be able to collect foreign intelligence without interference from the courts, the status quo ante that was U.S. law for decades before being upset by a secret court ruling last year.

Moreover, the telecommunications companies which patriotically complied with administration requests for assistance in the emergency conditions that obtained after nearly 3,000 Americans were mass-murdered in the 9/11 attacks will receive retroactive immunity. That is, they will be relieved of the potential billions in liability they (and their shareholders and customers) faced in scores of lawsuits

This is how wars are fought, inching along, taking two steps forward, one back. It would help, of course, if we were united in our desire to FIGHT this war, but such unity rarely happens outside of a dictatorship. the inefficiencies of a Democracy are always exposed to a greater extent when conflicts arise, and simply must be looked upon as the price of doing business in a Democracy.

No Comments »

To Vote or Not To Vote

June 21, 2008 | democrat, election, republican

I have talked to many Conservatives who feel betrayed by the current administration. Many people, I included, voted for the President with hesitation…and now feel betrayed by a President who they feel betrayed many of the principles on which he ran. The answer that many people come up with is to only vote for a candidate who meets their principles…whether or not he or she is running on a major party ticket. They suggest that voting for a ‘lesser of two evils’ is a betrayal of principle. One’s vote is precious, and should be reserved for a candidate for which one wishes to actually win…not a candidate who needs to be elected because his or her opponent is so much worse.

There is much to be said for this…but that point of view is missing a larger point. Voting one’s conscience, instead of voting for a purpose, does not take into account the place the United States holds in the world. It is not only our nation which is at risk when an incompetent such as John Kerry is elected President…it is civilization itself, and the debt we owe to past centuries of individuals who have sacrificed and struggled to build what we have today.

I wrote here that Western culture is the salvation of the world; if the United States, the inheritor of the mantle that the leadership of Western Civilization represents, falls, so does civilization in the world itself. I wrote here that the United States serves as a de-facto world government; we ARE the world, to quote an infamous song.  The United States is the only place that most of the world can look to for the type of security and services that a government is supposed to provide. We also provide a hope, by example, and by actual deeds, for millions of people that their own lives can be improved. We have a debt and a responsibility when we vote, not only to us, but to those who got us where we are, and to those who will follow us. We are not voting simply to make us feel good, we are fighting a war against barbarism. We are fighting to uphold and defend a legacy that goes back thousands of years, and we are fighting for a potential  future where everyone in the world has the opportunity to achieve their full potential…and for the opportunity to harness the full potential of everyone in the world to the benefit of humanity. That is what Capitalism and Democracy are about. 

Voting is thus not simply a personal choice. Throwing away one’s vote by voting for a candidate who has no possibility of winning an election opens up the potential that we could lose. We are fighting anti-Democratic mindsets, both domestically and internationally that would impose tyranny on the world. Leftism is tyrannical; they do not believe that people can govern themselves, they believe that people have to be told what to do for their own good. They are the enemy of civilization.  Religious fanatics are intolerant, and have no intention of allowing people to make free choices. We simply do not have the luxury of throwing away something as precious as a vote. We are at WAR, here…and we have no lock on winning this war. We could very well lose.

I am not advocating, here, blind allegiance to Democratic or Republican choices. We should, in fact, we are obligated, to work for the candidate of our choice. If we believe someone has a point of view that is a valuable addition to the American scene, it is very important that we put this point of view in front of the public. With enough exposure, perhaps that person can get to the point of nomination.

We are a two-party system, and it is very unlikely that a third party candidate will be elected for high political office. It is a tragedy of our American political scene that it is so hard for dark horse candidates to get elected for the Presidency…but that is our reality. Once that nomination is made, that is the choice available to us…and we have to choose one or the other party’s candidate.

Thus, sometimes the best we can do is vote for the least objectionable candidate…because the alternative is to lose a battle. If we lose enough battles, we lose the struggle for survivale…and our children will be the ones to suffer…and we will have betrayed those who came before.

SO…don’t vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate…vote for the one who is best able to keep us alive and whole, here. It might even be a Democrat; simply because the Republicans are in the right, here, does not mean that they will stay that way. Vote for civilization, and the future. Keep that in mind.

No Comments »

Sometimes You Have to Fight

June 20, 2008 | man, manly

I have a friend who is married, with children. He was telling me, the other day, about his six year old son. Now, my friend is not a pacifist. He just doesn’t like guns, though, and tried to keep guns, and stories about guns, away from his son. One day, however, totally out of the blue, his son came up to him, with his index finger extended, his thumb up, and said, “bang.”

 There have been in the history of mankind, most likely, six  year old girls who have, spontaneously, cocked their index fingers and said ‘bang’ to their mothers and fathers. If so, I have never heard of such an expression. I daresay, I doubt if anyone reading this have ever heard of a girl making a gun and pretending to shoot someone. As I said, I am sure it happens. In the realm of human experience, anything is possible…but for a girl to do this would be unusual. For a boy not to do this would be unusual.

 For some reason, boys play in terms of competition and war. It seems to be hardwired into their brains. While I am quite certain that, before the invention of pistols, young boys did not cock their index finger and say ‘bang,’ I am quite certain that young boys have always figured out ways to simulate weapons, if they did not have a real weapon with which to play. It is as much as being a boy, and being a man, as is anything else.

 Men love war. There were times and places where men were not afraid to say so, and other times where they were, but one of the few constants that exist in the history of mankind is that wars happen, and there has never been a lack of people around to fight those wars. Men volunteer to fight in droves, at the beginning of any war, seeking the thrill and excitement associated with the fighting, the uniforms, the saluting, drilling, the ability to make big explosions and destroy everything that can be seen….in other words, everything else associated with war.

This impulse towards violence seems to be capable of being re-directed, as the level of civilization increases. A prosperous, economically well-off culture rarely goes out to seek a fight with another culture. While, even in these cultures, there are always males who seek the thrill of combat and destruction (the reason why police are always needed), most males seem to be able to channel their destructive impulses to vicarious enjoyment of others trying to kill each other, watching football, kick-boxing and watching John Wayne on the tellie, for instance, or taking out their aggression on business rivals. This gives us hope for a future time when war is a thing of the past.

 We do not live in that world, yet, however, and no matter how comfortable we feel in our home, watching the Red Sox cream the Yankees one more time, there are people out there who are not living a cultured, comfortable life, and those people have no problem with the idea of killing others. These are uncivilized males, barbarians, if you will, living in primitive societies who have not been given an alternative to war and killing. They have, historically, been the bane of civilizations. It is not that civilizations have been brought down by barbarians, in the past, but barbarians have always been at the edges of civilization, waiting for those civilizations to become so indulgent as to ignore their outer defenses. At that point, barbarians invariably take advantage of the weaknesses of the defenses, and pour through the breaches to take the civilization from within.

 We see this happening in Europe where, at the end of World War II, Europe essentially disarmed, under the assumption that civilized people do not prepare for war. The logical result is that Iran feels no compunction about taking British soldiers hostage, while British warships are standing by. Britain appeals to the European community for help, and the European community does nothing, because it can do nothing. While they excoriate the United States for doing their work for them, they cannot do anything without working with the strength of the United States. They are a self-made paper tiger, without the will and the strength to defend themselves. It is a consequence of civilization, that living becomes so much more pleasant than dying that one would do anything to live…even to giving up ones freedom and sovereignty. Few people understand what Stan Rogers, the famous Canadian Folk Singer, once wrote, “That to call myself a man, for my loved one I must stand.” Sometimes you have to fight to be a man.

No Comments »

Our Country, Right or Wrong

June 19, 2008 | america, american ideals, democracy

W. Thomas Smith, Jr. writes in Town Hall about Stephen Decauter, a great American hero, and the meaning of the words above.

Despite his myriad other battles and adventures that were every bit as dramatic as the burning of the Philadelphia, Decatur is best known for his 1816 toast to the nation at a dinner party in his honor. Raising his glass, he said, ‘Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong.’

It remains one of the most endearing statements to those who love America’s history, traditions, and greatness.

REJECTING DECATUR’S WORDS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Then there are those like Hollywood film star George Clooney and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who today have their own takes on Decatur’s words.

Clooney dismisses them outright.

In a recent interview for The (U.K.) Guardian, Clooney said, ‘My country right or wrong means women don’t vote, black people sit in the back of buses and we’re still in Vietnam. My country right or wrong means we don’t have the New Deal. I mean, what, are you crazy? My country, right or wrong?’

Kennedy spins them his way.

Addressing Congress after the first Iraqi elections in 2005, the Senator said, When America is at its best, our deeds match our words. But many of us feel we haven’t done that in Iraq. We care about our country. Stephen Decatur famously said, My country, right our wrong. But others through the years have said it better - our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be set right.

There is, of course, a clear distinction between Decatur’s and Kennedy’s statements.

Decatur’s utterance was aimed at infusing all Americans with a bit of the soldier sailor commitment to all things: It is a sense of we are in this thing together, no matter what, right or wrong. That doesn’t mean we as Americans don’t endeavor to right our wrongs, but it does mean we should stand together despite our shortcomings as a nation. And we should do so because America’s greatness  and what we each have gained personally from that greatness  far outweighs America’s shortcomings.

Kennedy’s statement was more divisive, interjected with his own negative opinions about Iraq, and spoken at a time when armed American troops were in the field. It was in fact a statement first made by German-born Carl Schurz, a Civil War-era U.S. Army general turned Senator, and later editor-in-chief of The New York Evening Post.

Schurz’s version of Decatur’s toast includes a qualifier  which Kennedy prefers admitting wrong-doing prior to any wrong-doing; subtly suggesting that there is wrong-doing afoot; or suggesting that the nation by virtue of the fact that not everyone is of Schurz’s or Kennedy’s mind, is going to commit misdeeds in the future.

Decatur, on the other hand, was expressing unwavering devotion to a nation that  in addition to its offerings of freedom  had nurtured his life’s calling and that of so many millions of others then and yet to become Americans. Perhaps Clooney, Kennedy, and their ilk might reflect on the words of Decatur  not Schurz’s cynically amended version, but Decatur’s pure statement of loyalty, affection, and gratitude that simply cannot be improved upon. Nor dismissed.

No Comments »