Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
As I was walking to the bus stop this morning I saw an image attached to the garage door of one of my neighbors.
I’ve heard/seen that sentiment before, but with all my thinking about the flag and the meaning of patriotism lately it struck me differently. I appreciate the sentiment that we are not a nation that is afraid to stand up for what is right and to stick to a difficult task, but I think this sentiment cuts both ways. These colors should not run to create strife any more than they should run from an appropriate struggle. We have too much talk from the right about how strong the military is and ought to be. Instead we should be happy that our military is strong, and work on our nation to make sure it is worthy of such strength.
11 replies on “The Other Side of the Sentiment”
I appreciate the sentiment – we should not be the cause of friction in the world. At the same time, I doubt Putin would be causing the difficulties he is, if we weren’t otherwise occupied in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we are to be the policemen of the world (a big if) then we must improve our ability to fight on multiple fronts without more troops.
I would argue that we should not be otherwise occupied in Iraq – nor should we be the world’s policemen. Also, I have no problem with improving our ability to defend ourselves on any number of fronts – even during times of peace.
Nearly irrelevant to this post but hillarious.
http://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/your-candidatemy-candidate/
Totally irrelevant to this post, but funny – just as you promised – and true – which is also nice to see.
I don’t have a lot to say on this post other than your very last words of, “we ought to be worthy of such strength.”
I’m intrigued that more of your blog is not geared towards the government’s actions and their effect on the nation’s families. It seems to me that if our families were intact, we would not be in the socio-economic predicament we find ourselves in. I think that if the US goverment dumped every single law that we have and adopted and enforced only the Ten Commandments, we would quickly be out of the social, economic, and military quagmires we have gotten ourselves into.
Two recent examples:
Bill Clinton – for all the good that the economy was, he taught Americans that one can cheat on his spouse and lie about it and remain popular. That is a lie and a serious knock on the family.
George W. Bush – taught Americans that they really can have it all, money is cheap and fiscal responsibility is something for later. How did the housing market crumble? People felt entitled to the money they had put into their houses.
If we have our families in order, there will be plenty and to spare for everybody. We will have a military that is respected, not feared and hated because of the actions of a few miscreant soldiers. We will be worthy of our status as a “superpower”.
As it stands, with the family in shambles, we are lagging in education, in economics, in military power, and in overall world influence. America is a paper tiger and the world knows it.
We must enforce the family or nothing else will matter.
Carl,
I think you are really on to something here (although I don’t think our problems would melt a way if we just enforced the ten commandments).
You question why I don’t focus more attention on the effect that our government has on families – I think that’s a fair question, but I also think that your examples illustrate the fallacy of our expectations regarding government.
Clinton did demonstrate that popularity need not be compromised by a total lack of integrity and morals. What he did not do is anything to truly help the economy. His actions had little effect on the economy of his presidency, that economy was mostly inherited (despite the fact that he was elected right after a small period of recession).
The housing bubble was a result of rank-and-file citizens putting themselves at financial risk because they felt entitled to make use of the value “locked up” in their homes – but again, that had nothing to do with Bush.
Your question assumes that the government is holding the strings which control our tattered family structure. That is a common belief, but the truth is that our government is a reflection of our tattered society which is on the receiving end of the strings that are being pulled by our tattered families. Your conclusion – “We must enforce the family or nothing else will matter” – is accurate, but your underlying assumption – that fixing our government will reinforce the family – misses the mark.
My blog is very often focused on reining in government so that it is insulated from the breakdown of our society. A government that is properly limited would not have the power to enact laws that are detrimental to the family structure. This would expose the real problem, which is a lack of personal responsibility and individual integrity which values can only be instilled in the family setting. The civic setting can expose those characteristics (or lack thereof) but it cannot foster them.
You have absolutely nailed the problem that we must finally solve. I will see what I can do to speak more to that issue.
I agree with you 100%. A government of the people, by the people, for the people must necessarily reflect qualities of that people, good or bad.
I was making the statement from the point of view that if we want the government to solve our problems, this is what they must do.
You are again correct in that I was overbroad in my statement that getting rid of all the laws and only enforcing the Ten Commandments. I was speaking in general terms. Of course we need other regulation, but those Ten should be the basis of our system. It’s like the analogy of putting rocks and sand in a container. Put the rocks in first and then fit the sand around the rocks, not the other way around.
I didn’t mean to imply that Clinton helped the economy, but all my democrat friends argue that his presidency was a success because the economy was fantastic. I’m taking the shine off their argument.
I agree that Bush didn’t teach the rank and file that they were entitled to the equity in their homes, but he certainly didn’t warn against it. Cue a president with perfect ability to see the future. However, I think it would have gone a long way to help if he had, at some point, made general principle statements like, “Don’t mess with the roof over your head.”
I hope you have some valuable insights into the real issues at hand. I find your statements generally well informed.
Did you click on the link I posted?
I did click on the link you posted. I read Snider’s entire piece. Like I said, it was funny.
I think I can safely say that nothing would have been different if Bush had advised people to not jeopardize their most valuable possession. If you think about it, the members of the LDS church have a prophet (actually a series of them) who has given just that kind of counsel to get out of debt etc. and we , as a group do no better than the population as a whole when it comes to keeping that counsel.
[…] got thinking after Carl asked why I don’t talk about how the government should be focused on supporting the famil…. Carl is absolutely right that the “no such thing as standard” modern family is at the […]
Oh, I didn’t see the earlier post where you said that you had read the article. I actually had to look three times to find it. It kind of disappeared into the background due to its size.
So, what you are saying is that my responses must be verbose because when I am terse I get overlooked – even on my own site.