Wednesday, June 16, 2010

This is too disgusting for words!


I'm obliged to Cassy Fiano for bringing this matter to my attention.

It seems that Dennis Yarmouth Regional High School in Massachusetts decided some years ago to publicly recognize students who decided to join the US military after graduation. This year they recognized six students during a school assembly, which was also attended by the father of a Marine, a former graduate of the school (who had been similarly recognized in 2006), who was killed in Afghanistan last year.

Let the Cape Cod Times describe what happened.

Some students are calling for the firing of two Dennis Yarmouth Regional High School teachers who held an anti-war sign during a school assembly Friday.

History teacher Marybeth Verani and English teacher Adeline Koscher made their silent protest during the part of the assembly in which school officials recognized graduating seniors who are entering the military.

"They not only imposed their political will, they imposed it at the wrong time," said D-Y junior Andrew Bowles Jr., who organized an after-school protest yesterday that drew about 30 students.

Parents and other community members have flooded the high school principal's office with about 40 e-mails and phone calls criticizing the teachers' actions.

"I honestly feel (the protest) was misplaced," said D-Y parent Joanne Schuman of Yarmouth. "I think they should have been removed from that event."

Some individuals have voiced support for the two teachers, who were put on paid leave until at least tomorrow, Verani said.

She said she and Koscher were not trying to undermine the students but "to address the expansion of military recruitment of children in our schools.

"I think we're supposed to open the door for differences of opinion," said Verani, a longtime peace activist. "We're not all in lock-step agreement on everything."

The protest unfolded during the senior last assembly, when the high school gathers to recognize graduates for a variety of achievements. For the last five years the recognition ceremony has included the awarding of plaques to students entering military service, said Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School principal Kenneth Jenks.

"Most schools don't recognize students who go into the military," he said.

When D-Y resource Officer Nicholas R. Pasquarosa Jr. addressed the crowd, comparing the volunteer enlistees to a sheepdog standing between the flock and a wolf, Verani and Koscher stood on the bleachers and held an "end war" sign while everyone else sat.

What to many was a sign of respect for the students was to the protesting teachers a recruiting moment, said Verani, who noted that assistant principal George Morrison, a National Guardsman, attended in military fatigues.

"This was a captive audience," she said, adding that the plaques should have been given out at an after-school awards ceremony that was not compulsory attendance for all students.

Verani and Koscher tucked their sign away and sat while the names of the six students entering the U.S. Marine Corps, Army and National Guard were announced.

They remained seated while the rest of those at the assembly gave the students a standing ovation.

"Standing and applauding is a sign of support for the decision these people have made," Verani said. "I want them to be home and alive and well and going to college and dating and having kids and coaching Little League."

The protest struck the wrong note with many attendees, Jenks said.

"Large numbers of students and faculty were upset," he said. "This is a recognition ceremony, not a classroom debate."

Heightening the reaction was the attendance of Yarmouth police Lt. Steven Xiarhos, who lost his son, U.S. Marine Cpl. Nicholas Xiarhos, to a roadside bombing in Afghanistan in July 2009.

Nicholas Xiarhos, a 2006 D-Y grad, was among the first group of students to receive a plaque recognizing their military service.


There's more at the link.

I'm so sickened by this display I hardly know how to put it into words. Fortunately, Cassy Fiano did so better than I could.

First, these teachers should be immediately fired. End of story. To disrespect students in such a way is inexcusable, especially when these students are willing to fight to defend their freedom to be ignorant, rude, moonbat asses. Showing students how to exercise dissent? Please. It’s the most pathetic excuse possible. This teacher, Marybeth Verani, is so self-righteous and deluded that she actually feels like she did something honorable.

Considering the principal of the school considers the classroom an appropriate place to make politicial statements, though, they probably won’t face any kind of disciplinary action. What does it say about our education system when the classroom is considered a good place to make political statements? That’s called indoctrination, something that’s far too commonplace in our schools today.

As if this protest wasn’t disrespectful enough ... the father of a graduate of this school who gave his life for his country was in attendance. And these teachers, these selfish idiots, clearly did not care about how it might make this man feel to see these two basically disrespecting the sacrifice his son made and the service his son gave. Clearly, these teachers didn’t care that this moment was not about them, their ideals, or their politics. It was meant to be about the students — and yet they came, crashed the party, and made it all about them instead.

. . .

Virtually everyone at that school supported the six students enlisting into the military, except these two teachers. But they had to come along and spoil it for everybody.

The faux empathy doesn’t wash, either. These two teachers don’t give a damn about these students. They may claim that they want them home, safe, doing normal college kid things, but they fail to realize that some people are called to a higher purpose than just going to college — and that students don’t need their permission to enlist in the military. These students are just political props to them, an excuse to wave anti-war signs and act like they’re brave dissenters. They don’t actually care about whether or not these six students go to college and get married and have kids. They couldn’t possibly understand that if a brave, honorable few didn’t feel called to serve, then the rest of us wouldn’t have that safe, comfortable lifestyle that these two hold so dear. And when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter what they want these kids to do. If the students want to enlist in the military, then it is their decision to make. It doesn’t matter if they want them to go to college. It’s not their choice.

If these teachers wanted to protest the military, then they have every right to. If they want to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then they can. But there’s a time and a place to do that. An assembly honoring students enlisting, when the father of a fallen Marine is there, is not that time and place. It’s disgraceful, disrespectful, and disgusting. They should be fired and never allowed near a classroom again.

UPDATE:

I did a little research and got some e-mail addresses for the school.

First, here are the e-mail addresses for the two teachers who actually did the despicable deed. Feel free to give them a piece of your mind — but remember to be respectful and to use absolutely no profanity. Just because they are shrill, rude, disrespectful, anti-military, anti-American harpies doesn’t mean you should lower yourselves to their level. Keep a civil tone, please.

* Adeline Koscher: koschera@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Marybeth Verani: veranim@dy-regionalk12.ma.us

The following people you should e-mail — again, politely and respectfully — and demand that these teachers be fired. Remember that these people do not necessarily hold any kind of anti-military bias. One of them, George Morrison, is in the National Guard. But be firm and be direct.

* Kenneth Jenks, principal: jenksk@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Michael Grenier, assistant principal: grenierm@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* George Morrison, assistant principal: morrisog@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Mary Wollak, assistant principal: wollakmc@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Ann Knell, assistant principal: knella@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Judith Provencher, assistant to assistant principals: provenj@dy-regionalk12.ma.us
* Eileen Whalen, administrative assistant: whalene@dy-regionalk12.ma.us


Thanks, Ms. Fiano, for an outstanding piece of journalism, and for bringing our attention to this disgusting spectacle. I'd like to ask all my readers to please join hers in e-mailing those concerned, to express your own feelings about the matter, and join those (including me) who are calling for the dismissal of the teachers involved.

Peter

21 comments:

Joe in PNG said...

Every time I see something like this, I remember Kipling's poem "Tommy":

"...Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ’ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll..."

Richard said...

The Assitant Principal (Michael Grenier) wore military fatigues to that Assembly at Dennis Yarmouth High School. If he's going to promote his military stance by wearing that preposterous outfit and singling out the military-bound six students as somehow special then one must respect the rights of Ms Verani and Ms Koscher to peaceful dissent. After all they were'nt saying the didn't support the troops. The sign read "End War". What revolutionaries!! Give me a freakin' break.

Rich said...

Richard:

No. A military outfit is not preposterous. It is an accepted mode of dress in our society. Please do not attempt to redefine our society to suit your own ends.

Also, Ms. Verani and Ms. Koscher did NOT have the right to act as they did. They certainly did have the right to express their views, but not at that time and place. Circumstances matter.

In the hope of explaining further why your position is mistaken, I will post the text of the letter I have written on the subject below.

Rich said...

The following is the text of the letter I have drafted for Principal Jenks:


I am writing to express my disapproval of the behavior of the two teachers, Adeline Koscher and Marybeth Verani, in displaying a protest sign during a school assembly ceremony at Dennis Yarmouth Regional High School.

I feel that this action requires condemnation in the strongest possible terms. While I understand that these teachers hold legitimate views, and are constitutionally entitled to express them, they must bear the responsibility for having done so in an inexcusable way.

In choosing the time and place of their protest, they displayed profound disrespect, not only for the military, but for the school they work for and for the students themselves. While it is entirely appropriate for to express these views at almost any time and place, they chose one of the few where it is not.

Circumstances matter.

The portion of the ceremony that the teachers protested was a personal recognition of those particular students. In taking those actions, the teachers, in effect, carried out a personal attack on those students. A teacher has the duty, both as a teacher, and as a human being, to protect and nurture students under his or her care. The actions of these teachers were a complete and utter rejection of that duty. The emotional effects of their actions, not only on the students involved in the ceremony, but also upon the entire school body will be significant. People who callously carry out such actions to further their personal political agendas should not be responsible for educating our children.

Furthermore, in taking the actions they did, Koscher and Verani chose to demonstrate their contempt for the very school they are supposed to work for. There are many times and places for disagreeing with the school administration. That was not such a time or place. People who don't understand or, worse, repudiate their responsibilities in this area should not be allowed the opportunity to repeat such actions.

Koscher and Verani's defenders argue that the school administration's actions in recognizing the students was unusual. In the world we live in, where the military is an honored and integral part of our society (whether some people like it or not), respect for the military should not be considered an unusual or an odd emotion to express. Furthermore, even if unusual, it was the decision of the school administration to hold such a ceremony.

Koscher and Verani presumably don't realize it, but they are, in effect, saying that a young adult should not be given the option of joining the military. To restate the case, they are saying that the military is not a legitimate entity.

The military is an integral part of our society and to suggest that it is an inappropriate career choice is to attempt to redefine that society. That is not the place of a schoolteacher.

To gauge the level of inappropriateness of this action, one only need take a brief glance at the history of our country. Furthermore, to understand the vital nature of the military to the continued existence of our country, again, one only need take a brief glance in a history text.

In conclusion, the actions of Koscher and Verani are indefensible on a number of grounds. Their contempt for their students, the school they work for, and for the country that protects them renders them unsuitable to continue as teachers.

I am fully aware that I am not a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but I am a citizen of the United States of America, and as such I have not only the right but the obligation to express my views on this subject.

I thank you for your time and your consideration in this unfortunate matter.

Keads said...

@Rich- +1 on your response to Richard. A military uniform is indeed common. If he was in Class "A" dress would it make a difference? I think not in this case.

Promote "Military Stance"? I am sorry, but when did it become unacceptable not to do so? Do you not recognize the service and sacrifice these young people perform daily on your and my behalf? Can you tell me how many young lives are lost in routine training even if we were not at war?

"Preposterous outfit"? Indeed Sir! I am offended! I stand with anyone that recognizes the special burdens of anyone that wears the uniform!

I have an idea for you. Go see the changing of the guard of the Unknowns at Arlington. Go see the WWII Memorial in Wilmington NC. Go see the USS Yorktown at Patriots Point SC. In short, get a clue!

People went in harms way for you to enjoy the freedoms you have to say what you have here today. Some made the supreme sacrifice.

And I don't buy the "Support the troops but not the war" rubbish. I think people turned the WTC into a smoking crater if I remember correctly.

I know that rule one is "don't feed the trolls" in the Interweb space, but you hit a nerve!

I await your response Sir!

Anonymous said...

I just sent an email to all the email addresses listed and got the following response:
Sorry, I couldn't find any host named dy-regionalk12.ma.us.
Either the address was posted wrong or the overwhelming email response has caused them to take down the host.

Mario in PY said...

On the principle: "We agree to disagree agreeably."

Please check out the blog of a young lady from the USA teaching english in China, on what happens when the goverment does not allow dissent. You can read her post titled China v. Google: Chinese Students' Surprising Perspectives at http://chandlerinchina.blogspot.com/2010/03/china-v-google-from-students.html

My personal opinion is, that the authorities of a civial school should present as civilians. I can understand the use of a dress uniform in place of a suit and tie, but would consider the use of military fatigues (BDU?) rather dressing down or even somewhat agressive.

Given all the critisism agains the goverment of the USA - and especially the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq - published on this blog, I am rather suprised about the pro-goverment (the military is after all the enforcer of the goverment) opinion expressed in this post.

As far as I can see from the information provided, the teachers in question expressed an alternate point of view, and did so without profanity. It seems that the controversy is mainly fueled by the publication of the incident in the press. Maybe they should have requested the opportunity to speak about the history of this "war" and help the students make an informed decision.

Drawing a parallel to central Europe about 80 years ago: Germany started to wage a "war against terror" trying to defend its own freedom and identity. The consecuence was World War 2. I see many similarities in the attitude of the US goverment during the last 10 years to the german goverment in the late 1920's and 1930's.

I would suggest that we ALL try to avoid becoming fanatical on the issue of joining the military or not.

Peter, I will respect your personal opinion. And I do appreciate your well researched historical articles, as well as your more personal experiences. Please keep blogging as long as your are able to.

Anonymous said...

I am annoyed at these teachers, not because they expressed their point of view but because they were rude. This ceremony was to honor students, not the teachers. I would consider this behavior rude if they interrupted a speech by the President or any other politician. If they were invited to a soldier's wedding, would they have done this? How about a military funeral? I don't think so.
When I read or hear about people who want to end this war, I would like to ask them why they haven't done anything about it? They aren't accomplishing anything here. Why not go to Afghanistan or Iraq and ask those people nicely to quit.

Joe in PNG said...

(TWEET) Goodwin's law violation! 15 yard penalty and loss of down!

I get very, very irritated when someone tries to equate respect for the uniform to the rise of the Third Reich.
The incident above and the rise of Hitler are about as similar as apples and lighbulbs.

Allowing a school to recognize future servicemen is just as likely to lead to world war as vegitarianism. Hitler was a vegitarian, after all.

You have a right to disagree. But please study a little more history. May I suggest John Keegan's "The Second World War".

Richard said...

Rich

You're mistaken.

Appearing in military fatigues is a direct political statement by the Dennis-Yarmouth High School Administration (as was the special treatment given the six inductees to the exclusion of other accomplished students). The Administration of a school system (supported in part by my own taxes) has no business promoting ANY political agenda.

Keads: It's not "unpopular" at a National Guard meeting perhaps to wear military fatigues. But as a mode of dress at that Assembly the D-Y school system was sending a clear message that everyone had better conform in a lock-step fashion to a war-mongering state of mind. Believe it or not this country contains among its citizens Pacifists. Last I knew this was a country free for Ms. Verani and Ms. Koschera to express peacefully their dissent in the face of an obvious bias by the school system.

Our Consitution and Bill of Rights guarantees Verani and Koschera the right to said dissent. Lest you all forget this country was founded in dissent. In the 1770s many (among them Sam Adams, Tom Paine, and Ben Franklin to name a but a few) were considered traitors by the British Crown. There was a price on their heads. Our very life blood depends on dissent. It keeps our government in check. Be forewarned: the blatant nationalism manifest since 9/11 cleverly ditracted and manouvered by G.W. Bush to Iraq to settle his father's old score with Saddam Hussein is the sort of exclusionary nationalism that occurred between the two World Wars in Germany. And we all know where that led. It's a pity if that analogy offends Joe the poster.

Joe in PNG?

Much as you may dislike my valid comparison of the present faux-patriotic mindset in this land to The Third Reich you appear unable to explain how it differs. All you can assert is that it's "apples and lighbulbs [sic]".

It is you, friend, who needs to hone up on his American (and for that matter World) history - not I.

Richard said...

To the blog owner:

Your Dennis-Yarmouth emails do not work ... none of them.

Richard said...

And here's a copy of the letter I sent to Principal Jenks:

"To Kenneth Jenks and all other involved:

I was appalled at the hoopla surrounding Mary Beth Verani's placard at graduation.

In my view the students who'd joined the armed forces should not have been singled out for special adulation any more than those going on to jobs or higher education.

Ms Verani and Ms. Koschera had a civic obligation to hold up her "End War" placard if their convictions were pacifistic in nature. And to those who say it was an improper venue I say the venue was equally inappropriate to make heros out of graduating students who've opted to join the Armed Forces.

It appears from the reaction of the D-Y students that (for the most part) we've raised a generation of Hawkish robots. High time we had teachers of Ms. Verani's and Ms. Koschera's caliber who are not afraid to voice legitimate dissent.

No one is suggesting the troops not be supported. Verani simply wanted it known that we've lost sight of the real problem: we went to war with the wrong country and that war is never a solution. Is pacifism not allowed at Dennis-Yarmouth High School? Apparently not. However it would appear that the hawkish adulation of those joining the war efforts (to the exclusion to the accomplishments of other fine students) is something of which the school adminisatration approves heartily. This is the United States of America. Have we learned nothing from our historical past?

War begets war.

I understand "disciplinary action" is being considered for Ms.Verani and Ms. Koschera by you Kenneth Jenks. That's outrageous. I think disciplinary action against those who deemed it appropriate to single out the military-bound students for high praise ought to face "disciplinary action".

The world in upside down. Time to reread The Constitution and The Bill of Rights folks.

Sincerely,

Joe in PNG said...

"Facepalm"

Look, I didn't want to go a large post, but here you go.

Germany, early 1930’s:
1) Had only been a unified country for little over 60 years.
2) Had been ruled by a buffoon of an absolute monarch for a good part of that time.
3) Had just barely lost a very, very nasty war- as a consequence, the monarch abdicated the throne and the country was left with a very weak and unstable government.
4) Said government was forced to sign a very harsh and unfair treaty- a treaty whose terms were all out of proportion to the victor’s results on the battlefield. A treaty that directly led to the collapse of the economy.
5) During this time also there was a serious threat of a communist revolution- similar to one that had just happened in nearby Russia, and was even then killing millions.
So, in 1932 the German Reichstag had a dilemma. The National Socialist party did not have enough seats on their own, but had a large enough block (37% and 230 seats) to ensure that any other parties would have to deal with either them or the Communist to form a government. So the choice was to continue on the present course and risk collapse, anarchy, and a possible revolution, or allow the radical yet popular Nazi’s to form a government. They chose Hitler, and would really come to regret it in the years ahead.

Now a note about the Germans and the military. In the years well before WWI, the Germans had universal male conscription. All young men had to serve in the military for at least two years, with the following decades spent in the reserves. Next, the core aristocratic leadership of the country was by the Prussians- a very, very military minded group. Way more autocratic than any American could ever stand- think Patton but even more so. As such the Germans had an extreme respect for authority, especially military authorities. Many non military government officials would wear uniforms. But that was very, very typical of most monarchal government at the time. Kings especially, but even Churchill was fond of putting on a uniform whenever he could get away with it.

Back to WWI. Germany was not defeated; they just kind of walked away in November 1918. But being forced by the terms of the Versailles treaty to gut the military was a bit much. They got a little bitter about it. So when Hitler tossed the unfair thing in trash and began to rearm, of course the military got a bit excited… up until they found out exactly what Hitler was up to.

Now this is where you would try to make a comparison. “Hey Franz, we got our army back to strength and national dignity back!” “Yah, so now I feel like invading Poland and starting another world war!” But no, it’s an apples and light bulbs comparison. Yes, both are round… but that’s about it. The circumstances are utterly and completely different here.

Joe in PNG said...

Now to finish my point.

The earlier point I wanted to refute was the idea that honoring future servicemen in a school assembly would lead to a New Third Reich and World War. Because the Nazi’s venerated military service and uniforms.

Two things. This was a clear violation of Goodwin’s law, and also ivokes the “Hitler ate sugar” fallacy. Hitler ate sugar. Therefore, sugar causes Nazism and war. Hitler was a vegetarian… can you see the point? Correlation does not equal causality.

The rise of the Third Reich was waaaay more complicated than just militarism. Other nation states to this day still have universal conscription, and yet are not even close to becoming Fascist. Switzerland being a prime example.

ZerCool said...

The email addresses should all be @dy-regional.k12.ma.us ... there was a missing dot.

way said...

The chance these two members of the funny farm are Democrats and are Jewish is very high.
Lets start calling out these Marxist Dems. and Jews for what they are. ANTI-American.

Rich said...

To the forum: I beg your apology for taking so much time and space. I know that I’m flogging a deceased equine here, but I feel the need, and it is useful for my own mental state to put these thoughts down in a tangible manner.

I'll make my reply in two posts as it is more than 4096 characters long.

Richard, I appreciate your taking the time to reply, so I will take your argument a meme at a time.

Appearing in military fatigues is a direct political statement by the Dennis-Yarmouth High School Administration (as was the special treatment given the six inductees to the exclusion of other accomplished students).

No. Support for an integral and vital part of both the government apparatus and of the United States itself is not a political statement. To attempt to redefine it as such is to “move the goalposts” as it were. However, to attempt to undermine such support, that is a political statement. And, in this case, it is an inappropriate one.

The Administration of a school system (supported in part by my own taxes) has no business promoting ANY political agenda. 



You are correct, but please see above for what constitutes a political agenda.

Keads: It's not "unpopular" at a National Guard meeting perhaps to wear military fatigues. But as a mode of dress at that Assembly the D-Y school system was sending a clear message that everyone had better conform in a lock-step fashion to a war-mongering state of mind.

OK, you’ve admitted it. You are pushing a political agenda. When you say things like “lock-step fashion to a war-mongering state of mind” you reveal that you are approaching the situation from a hostile, closed minded, position. Such terms indicate a visceral, unthinking, bias that is blinding you to the fact that there are two sides to this argument.

Furthermore, to hold that position, you cannot be taking history into account. Without the US military, the world would be no place where you would have the ability, let alone the right, to express your views. Just a few examples for you: the revolutionary war; the war of 1812; the First World War; the Second World War.

Now, I know you’re going to say something like “the Vietnam war and the Gulf Wars are different.” No, they’re not. They represent our government’s best efforts to do what they believe is right for the country. You and I elected them. If you don’t like it, vote for somebody else. I assume you did, as you have the right to.

To try to disable the military because you don’t like what the government does with it is, in the final analysis, self-destructive. This country could not survive without its military.

Believe it or not this country contains among its citizens Pacifists.

We’re in agreement there. However, the statement is not relevant to this discussion. Also, I’m glad that the pacifists in this country have the military to stand between them and the people in this world who would use their pacifism as a weapon against them.

(part 2 below)

Rich said...

(part 2) --- make that 3 parts --- I broke the post in the wrong place --- sorry

Last I knew this was a country free for Ms. Verani and Ms. Koschera to express peacefully their dissent in the face of an obvious bias by the school system.

Our Consitution and Bill of Rights guarantees Verani and Koschera the right to said dissent. Lest you all forget this country was founded in dissent. In the 1770s many (among them Sam Adams, Tom Paine, and Ben Franklin to name a but a few) were considered traitors by the British Crown. There was a price on their heads. Our very life blood depends on dissent. It keeps our government in check.

Every word you write here is true, and well said.

It's the conclusions you draw from them that are flawed. Comprehension of historical events cannot occur out of context. Please compare the political situation at the time of the revolution with that today. As only one example, the revolution occurred here in America. If circumstances were comparable, you could die ... right here ... today ... from a gunshot fired by a foreign soldier.

While people on both sides of the aisle like to use apocalyptic language to make their arguments seem strong or relevant, it doesn’t reflect reality.

As I said previously, Verani and Koschera had the right to express their opinions ... to hold up that sign. However, they did NOT have the right to do it where and when they did. An analogy is that you can yell fire, but not in a crowded theater. As the Supreme Court has consistently ruled, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech are constitutional. To argue that they had a right to free speech without addressing time place and manner completely misses the point.

Please don’t attempt the argument that the Supreme Court is stifling dissent. As has become plain in the last few decades, there is more than ample room for dissent. Only in a few times and places, carefully chosen and always justified, is free speech curtailed.

To press your political points in an inappropriate forum is not dissent. It is disrespect.

I suspect that you will say that the country, or it’s military, or its military policies are not worthy of respect. That is untrue. Even if you believe that, are not students, young people, worthy of that respect?

After all, I disagree with you utterly, yet you and I are arguing in an appropriate forum and with more than a modicum of respect.

Rich said...

(part 3)

Be forewarned: the blatant nationalism manifest since 9/11 cleverly ditracted and manouvered by G.W. Bush to Iraq to settle his father's old score with Saddam Hussein is the sort of exclusionary nationalism that occurred between the two World Wars in Germany.

As another poster stated at length, the circumstances are utterly different. Furthermore, what’s wrong with blatant nationalism? If you have no nationalism, you will, eventually, have no nation. What’s the alternative? Apathy? Hatred of your own country?

It’s definitely OK to want to change your country, but it seems to me that doing so by taking actions that endanger it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Whether you like it or not, the nations of this world are in competition for political power, control of resources and space. Sometimes that competition is friendly, such as between Great Britain and us, and sometimes it is hostile, such as between Iran and us.

I know that you will argue that such competition is far inferior to global cooperation. You are right. However, reality trumps theoretical wishfullness every single time.

The thought of absolute fairness, moral rectitude (as you define the morals), and absolutely unbiased (from your biased point of view) behavior doesn’t exist in the real world. The real world is messy. Nobody likes war, but, as discussed above, sometimes it is necessary.

There may come a time (I fervently wish it so – as does the military) that we can realistically make that an immediate, as opposed to a theoretical goal.

However, that would require both negotiation and a place where actions can become mutually advantageous for all parties. There is no space here to detail the myriad ways that the human race, our technology, and our world, fall short of having the capabilities to make this happen now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. To even begin to move blindly towards such an end at this time is, in the end, suicidal.

Furthermore, as I pointed out above, if you don’t like the war, fair enough. But, to take it out on the people in the military is pointless. Take it out on the politicians who take them to war. To try to gut the military because you don’t like the war is merely self-destructive.

Much as you may dislike my valid comparison of the present faux-patriotic mindset in this land to The Third Reich you appear unable to explain how it differs. All you can assert is that it's "apples and lighbulbs [sic]".

It is you, friend, who needs to hone up on his American (and for that matter World) history - not I.

Your argument here is rhetorical, not factual. First, your comparison is not valid. As another poster pointed out, the circumstances are utterly different. Second, defining patriotism as “faux-patriotism” is another rhetorical trick without any merit whatsoever. You are in no position to judge the patriotism of others. The viewpoint you espouse is a danger to yourself and, if carried widely enough, to the entire nation.

I will, however, defend to my death your right to make that argument.

Rich

Anonymous said...

wow americans fighting and sacrificing their lives for freedom are the same ones trying to get freedom taken away, this is what america has turned in to a bunch of babies who can not handle real freedom

John B said...

Those two women, I'd gather from their manners, present as educational hacks, and NEA whores. The argument presented here was simple, you want to present your point of view, rent your own hall, don't hijack someone elses.