Issue 3 - Patriotism

Horace Mann reviewTHe

PATRIOTISM

HeadingHorace Mann Review, voL Xvii

Page 1

3 The CIA: Just or Unjust?How the CIA needs to bring the skeletons out of the closet to truly protect America. By Nick Herzeca

7 Uncle Sam Shouldn’t Want You!:How the draft violates the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By Ben Jacobson

8 New McCartheyism:The distinguishing features of McCartheyism are as clearly present now as they were fifty years ago. By Kevin Lin

17 Faith on the Ballot:The role that faith and religion play for voters in America. By Starlyte Harris

23 Mock the Vote:Everyone always says, “vote to be patriotic”- but in some cases voting may be just the opposite... By Spencer Penn

25 Profiting Off Patriotism:How the Media sacrifices its integrity for ratings.By Henry Hoglund

33 Europeaness:How Nationalism and Eurosceptism are threatening the European Union. By Brenton Arnaboldi

Horace Mann ReviewThe

M a r c h 2 0 0 8 : I s s u e I I I , V o l . X V I I

Patriotism 5 A Step too Far:Patriotism and the Army. By Justin Katiraei

6 Patriotism in Wartime:Why protesting against Iraq is the right thing to do. By Victor Ladd

11 Patriotism, Gone:Call 9-11. By Aradhna Agarwal

13 Dangerous Defense: Revising the U.S’s earth-shattering national debt. By William Manning

15 Minuteman, Inc.:How citizens are taking the law into their own hands, with disas-trous results By Eric Schwartz

19 Pledge of Alleigance?:An argument against “Under God” in the Pledge. By Will Dubbs

21 The Two-Party System:How the two-party system under-mines government. By Amelia Ross

27 The Oprah Factor:How celebrities have influenced our elections. By Andrew Demas

28 Blindfolded Patriotism:How naional leaders exploit pa-triotism to manipulate the people. By James Yaro

29 Redacting Redacted:How a movie about silenced opin-ions of the Iraq War was silenced itself. By Joseph Pomp

31 Written in the U.S.A:The pros and cons of buying American. By Hill Wyrough

32 Persians:A proud people repressed. By Kimya Zahedi

35 The Elgin Marbles:Greece’s struggle to retrieve its long-lost art. By Eliza Harkin

36 Putin’s Kingdom:The need to bring freedom to Putin’s Russia. By Venedikt Sorkin

37 Red, White, Blue:Patriotism and Country Music.By Dan Shapiro

Thank you for picking up the third issue of the Horace Mann Review.

25 33138

The Horace Mann Review

issue 3-

The horace Mann review

voluMe Xvii , issue 3

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Associate EditorsWill Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Spencer Penn, Rumur Dowling, Nancy DaSilva, Nick Herzeca, Dan Temel, Jason Sunshine

Contributing WritersNick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Eliza Harkins, Nancy DaSilva, Will

Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Jason Sunshine, Victor Ladd, Sonja Perl, Aradhna Agarwal, Miguel Alonso-Lubell, Dan Shapiro,

Justin Katiraei, James Yaro, Belle Yoeli

Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio and

Dr. Barbara Tischler

[email protected]

The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Associa-tion, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at [email protected]. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not neces-sarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.

Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is pleased to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. E-mail us at [email protected] for information. Thank you for your support.

© 2008, The Horace Mann Review

Page 2

Thomas HwangVenkat Kausik

Alice KissilenkoZach MalterBen Mishkin

Senior Editor

Letter From the Editor

Neal PooleDirector of Technology

Nick GerardWebmaster

Ted SumersPhotography Editor

Ben JacobsonKimya ZahediSenior Columnist

William KimProduction Assistant

Charles StamAnoushka VaswaniChairpeople of the Board

Tal ShacharProduction Manager

Lindsay GellmanEditorial Director

Jake SloaneManaging Director

Rachel SiegelCopy Chief

Kunal MalkaniEditor-in-Chief

PatRiotisM

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of the third issue of The Review, which explores the issues surrounding patriotism. On the cover is Pat Tillman, who left a multi-million dollar contract in the NFL to join the US Army after the September 11th attacks. Tillman served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in April of 2004 he was killed in action in Afghanistan. Following the incident, the US Army tried to portray his incident as a result of hostile fire, but it later came out that Tillman was killed in a friendly-fire incident. The incident has, in some ways, become emblematic of the use and abuse of patriotism. Pat Tillman gave up his promising career in the NFL to defend his country in its time of need, and his devotion and sacrifice was betrayed by a cover-up story.

Most Americans would consider patriotism, love for and devotion to one’s country, to be a good thing. However, an increased feeling of patriotism can be manipulated and misdirected, to justify conduct that may be against the values that make this nation unique. In President Ronald Reagan’s farewell address, he warns that the new resurgence of patriotism won’t count for much and won’t last, “unless it is grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge. And informed patriotism is what we want.” In this issue, we aim to look at the use and abuse of patriotism by politicians and the government. The patriotic feeling is no substitute for, and arguably requires, a zealous effort on behalf of the citizens to ensure that their government does not violate the values that the country stands for.

Our writers have examined a host of topics to see if the government passes this test. Nick Herzeca looks at the Central Intelligence Agency’s conduct through history and in present day. Ben Jacobson looks at whether the draft fits within the principles of the country. Starlyte Harris looks at the role that faith plays in American politics and whether it is important for a political leader to have faith. I urge you to read these and our other thought provoking articles on this topic.

On behalf of the staff, thank you in advance for reading. We hope you enjoy the issue.

Sincerely,

Kunal Malkani


A government agency drugs its citizens, plots to as-sassinate foreign leaders, and allegedly tortures foreign detainees. Although this sounds like the government of a Third World country, it is actu-ally the Central Intelligence Agency of America.

The CIA, a secretive agency, operates outside the view of the Ameri-can public and arguably in an unpatriotic and amoral manner. There are many instances in which the CIA’s secretive operations have caused serious harm to American citizens and to relationships with foreign nations. The time has come to redefine the acceptable pa-rameters of CIA conduct.

The CIA’s questionable practices date back to its earliest years. In 1953, the CIA launched project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control research program that administered lysergic acid diethylamide, better known as LSD, to test subjects in order to manipulate them. Although LSD was legal in the United States until 1967, the tests were often conducted without the subjects’ consent. CIA employ-ees, military personnel, doctors, other government agents, prosti-tutes, mentally ill patients, and members of the general public were administered an untested drug and subjected to its harmful effects. The CIA’s efforts to “recruit” subjects were often illegal, and those individuals who consented to such tests were singled out for more extreme experiments. In one case, consenting volunteers were given LSD for 77 consecutive days. In a 1955 document regarding the project MK-ULTRA, the CIA revealed its disturbing goals for this project, which included: searching for methods to promote illogical thinking and publicly discredit certain people; perfecting hypnosis; erasing witnesses’ memories; encouraging fabricated statements; and surreptitiously rendering someone unconscious. Project MK-ULTRA caused several recorded deaths and undocumented psycho-logical damage. The CIA used illegal methods to try to protect the

US, resulting in dangerous and counterproductive results for Ameri-can citizens.

More recently, in 2002 the CIA held terrorist suspects in secret locations and interrogated them using controversial meth-ods approaching torture. The techniques included sleep depriva-tion, stressful physical positions, exposure to harsh temperature conditions, and simulated drowning, or waterboarding. If these allegations are true, they would be a direct violation of the Gene-va Convention. These torturous interrogation tactics have led to questionable confessions and the death of at least one detainee. A Congressional committee has been established to investigate these alleged illegal activities. In at least two instances, the CIA video-taped these interrogations, compiling hundreds of hours of video of American agents participating in harsh treatment of foreign prison-ers. The CIA destroyed the tapes in late 2005. The director of the CIA, Michael V. Hayden, said that the CIA destroyed the tapes be-cause they were “not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries” and, if made public, they could identify CIA employees who would be vulnerable to retaliation by militants. Members of Congress disagreed with Hayden, saying that the tapes had poten-

tial value to ongoing Congressional proceedings, and others said they could have been used by the September 11 Commission and in terrorism trials. Critics have also said that the CIA could have blurred any images of American agents in the tapes. In addition, the agency is known to possess vast amounts of other un-destroyed

The CIA’s questionable practices date back to its earliest years.

The CIA:Just or Unjust?

By Nick Herzeca

CIA W

ebsite

Page 3


issue 3-

material that could identify CIA employees. Even though no American citizens have been harmed by the suspect interrogation techniques, it sets a precedent that detainees and prisoners of war are treated harshly. If the

CIA is torturing foreign detainees, what is to stop other foreign countries from torturing American detainees?

The CIA has been accused of 638 attempted assassinations on Fi-del Castro in the fifty years he has been in power in Cuba. Examples of these plots range from poisonous cigars to poisoned wetsuits and explod-ing seashells. The CIA even hired a member of the Mafia, Johnny Ro-selli, to assist in one of these attempts. The most recent occurred in 2000, when the CIA reportedly placed dynamite under a podium where Castro was scheduled to speak in Panama. Fidel Castro’s older brother accused US President George Bush of “authorizing and ordering” Castro’s killing. “Upon the orders of the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency tried to assassinate President Fidel Castro and other former personalities and leaders,” the Communist Party newspaper Granma reported. “What was already presumed and denounced will be corroborated.” Another as-sassination plot, the infamous Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, involved over 1400 Cuban exiles that attempted to overthrow Castro and his regime. This invasion was sponsored by John F. Kennedy and the CIA. Nearly all members of this invasion were captured or killed. The CIA has released a report, which admits that the exiles were treated as “puppets” by the agency in order to achieve the CIA’s political objective. The Bay of Pigs invasion is just one of many disastrous failed regime changes orchestrated by the CIA which have adversely impacted America’s foreign relation-ships. In the name of patriotism, the CIA is attempting to overthrow the government of a country that America is not even at war with. The goal of the CIA is to protect its own citizens, but meanwhile it is overstepping their legal constraints.

In 1947, the CIA was established in the name of patriotism to gather information, either openly or covertly, which would help protect American citizens. Since its inception, the CIA in many instances abused

its power of secrecy and produced counterproductive results that harmed American citizens. The Justice Department recently launched a criminal investigation into the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation tapes. What Congress and the Justice Department should do is commence a compre-hensive investigation into all of the CIA’s operations and its policies and procedures. This would bring the skeletons out the closet and allow the government to redefine what the CIA has the power to do. The CIA could then protect American citizens in lawful ways, which is the essence of patriotism.

The CIA has been accused of 638 attempted assassinations on Fidel Castro, ranging from

poisonous cigars to exploding seashells.

Since its inception, the CIA has abused its powers and harmed Ameri-

can citizens.

An investigation linked LSD Guru Timothy Leary to the CIA.

Astraeu C

hakar

Mark Phillips and Cathy O’Brien

Encyclopedia Brittannica

More recently the CIA held terrorist suspects in secret locations and interrogated them using con-

troversial methods.

The goal of the CIA is to protect its citizens, but meanwhile, it is overstepping their legal con-

straints.

Page 4

PatRiotisM


A Step Too FarPatriotism and the Army

By Justin Katiraei

Patr

ick

Bren

nan

Patriotism is one of the key issues in the 2008 presidential race and in our post-September 11th world. Extreme patriotism, however, can lead individuals to institute policies that are not in the best interest of their nation, as is

the case with mandatory national service, or military drafting. A patriot is “a person who vigorously supports his or her coun-

try,” which in this case, is the United States. Thus, to fully understand the definition of an American patriot, we must look back just over two centuries ago, when America was founded. Our very first sol-diers were volunteers who fought against England, then the greatest empire in the world, to defend their values of freedom. Yes, freedom, “the power or right to act without hindrance.” Are we then still fight-ing for freedom, under freedom, when we set a mandatory national service, when we bind our eighteen-year-olds? Is this really what America has defined to be patriotic, to be the Great American Dream?

The time for American forced labor systems has long been over. Perhaps those who support a draft should look back at the Emancipa-tion Proclamation or the Declaration of Human Rights. American slav-ery seems to have evolved from working in a field to bleeding in Iraq.

The Heritage Foundation claims, “The arguments in fa-vor of a draft are not well grounded logically, empirically, or even philosophically.” Those offered by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who has recently announced his intention to reinstate the draft, are threefold: social justice, peace, and better troops.

Rangel initially insisted that our volunteer army force is filled with our poorest citizens and that a draft would bring together people from various income blocks. According to military data, however, the average U.S. soldier is wealthier than the average U.S. civilian. Rangel then claimed that our troops come from places of very high unem-ployment. Data, once again, shows otherwise. New York, a state with a low employment rate, has an enlistee to population ratio of 0.72, meaning that New Yorkers are underrepresented in the military by 28 percent. According to Rangel’s logic, Montana, with an even low-er unemployment rate, should have an even lower enlistee to popula-tion ratio than New York. But Montana happens to have the highest military enlistee to population ratio of any state in the nation, at 1.57.

Rangel believes that there would be less war if our troops came from the children of policy makers themselves. But then how does he explain the wars fought with a draft? The Civil War, World War I,

World War II, and the Korean War, among many, were even blood-ier than the Iraq War. The American body tolls were horrendous: 191,963 in the Civil War, 53,402 in World War I, 291,557 in World War II, and 33,741 in the Korean War. The non-drafted Iraq War, on the other hand, has accumulated just over 3,000. And to think it cost America 4,435 lives to attain this “freedom” in the first place.

How could the motivation and morale of our troops pos-sibly increase when our ranks are full of people who do not want to be there? Our current, voluntary enlistees are motivated and educated individuals. The average serviceman reads an entire grade level higher than his civilian counterpart and high school graduation rates for wartime recruits are 17 percent greater than for U.S. civilians of the same age. Our own American generals and admirals argue that a draft would weaken mission capabil-ity and create enormous structural and managerial problems.

The United States is not the only country where the draft has been banned. Twenty-eight countries around the world have banned the draft, including almost all of our fellow Western devel-oped countries. The United Kingdom, Canada, France, Spain, Por-tugal, Italy, Belgium, etc. have all done away with the system. Even countries such as Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Tanzania have ille-galized the military draft, without problem. But the United States, whose GDP is over 80 times as large as all four of those countries combined, seems to have some issues with keeping slavery illegal.

This is not to say that joining the military is unpatriotic, which could not be farther from the truth. If you truly want to fight on your own will, our country can use your assistance. However, do not let people like Rangel sit behind a desk twiddling his thumbs, while you as his slave fight for him half way around the world.

Mandatory national service, through war or in peace, is a violation of your human rights, let alone those granted to you in the Constitution. The ideology between military draft and other forms of national service are the same, as both are appli-cations of forced labor. If the United States cannot create an all-volunteer force to fight the global war on terror, then we have far worse problems than we think. No draft can give a nation the will to fight; only its citizens can do that. If we start thinking of military service as anything less than admirable, we will have suf-fered a far more crippling defeat than any terrorist can provide.

Page 5


issue 3-

The citizens of a country are never more vo-cal about their patriotism then when they are in war. However, we have to question whether this patriotism is productive or mis-guided. Although sometimes people define

patriotism as supporting the government regardless of the gov-ernment’s actions, patriotism is not blindly accepting the govern-ment, but rather expressing one’s own opinion about an issue in order to aid one’s country. As Carl Schurz said, “The peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be se-cure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: “Our country- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.”

In wartime, it is especially easy to fall into the trap of not ex-pressing one’s opinion, as many people claim that doing so some-how represents a lack of devotion to one’s country. However, history shows us that expressing one’s opinion is perhaps most important during wartime. By examining the Iraq War through the lens of the Vietnam War, we can see that protest and expressing one’s opin-ion is necessary in order to be patriotic. America is unique among other countries because of its celebration of free speech and the ability of one strong voice to change the course of the country.

The Vietnam War was a defining period for America in many ways: not only did it define a generation; it also defined our nation’s attitude towards patriotism. During the Vietnam War, nu-merous people protested against the government’s actions. How-ever, the protests were not organized as patriotic Americans fighting for a cause, but rather as people railing against the brutal injustice of American government. Looking back on Vietnam, it can be ar-gued that those who protested against America- even those who vehemently fought the “American Empire”- were being the most patriotic of all citizens. Their sacrifices to uphold their beliefs were unmatched by other citizens. Even though the protesters may have disrupted the order of the nation, their fighting for their beliefs was in keeping with the most sacred American tradition of free expres-sion. A government’s ideal purpose is to justly represent and defend the people it governs. The masses of protestors were attempting to correct the mistake they believed the government had made, and in-deed, the protestors contributed in changing the general sentiment towards the war and ultimately ending the war.. The Vietnam War showed us how protests are more patriotic than quiet obedience.

Currently, the United States is embroiled in a war similar to

the Vietnam War, but there are significantly less people protesting the war. The Iraq War started in 2003 and has dragged on ever since “mission accomplished.” Today, free discourse on the war is almost informally prohibited, as “support our troops” has become a line syn-onymous to “support the administration,” and “I don’t support our administration” has been made out by some to be “I don’t support the troops.” Although the war is hugely unpopular, there are few protests to stop the war, and people seem to care a lot less about the events occurring in Iraq than people did about the war in Vietnam. There has been a noticeable trend towards not acting to stop the Iraq War.

There are many possible reasons for this being the case. Per-haps the most obvious reason is that there is no draft for the Iraq War, making the war seem more remote. Few people have direct relatives in Iraq and only 40% of the populace has a direct relative in military service. Currently, without the draft, there is no risk of someone being forced into Iraq. Since most people are “out of harm’s way,” the incentive to protest to stop the war is diminished.

However, a more troubling reason why there are few-er protests for the Iraq War may be that there is an increasing trend towards accepting the view that citizens should not ques-tion the government on security matters. While it is true that in times of war the government should, of course, be in charge of security matters, that does not suggest that citizens should not advocate their opinions on a security issue, as the govern-ment needs to be working in the favor of the general populace.

This government was made by the American people and for the American people. However, if people choose not to express their opinions then we are not doing our jobs as devoted citizens. As Martin Luther King said, “I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a moral example to the world.” Many people will agree that it is necessary to express our views to better our country. It is about time we start doing that for the Iraq War.

The Vietnam and the Iraq War are different battles, but just because the wars are different does not mean that the level of civil-ian involvement should be different. The events surrounding the war in Vietnam showed Americans that through time and effort, those who wished to change the country could do so. Now, in the midst of the Iraq War, we must recall this lesson from history. As Edward R. Murrow said, “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”

WartimeBy Victor Ladd

“History shows us that expressing one’s opinion is perhaps most important during wartime.”

“While it is true that the government should be in charge of security matters, that does not suggest

that citizens should not advocate their opinions.”

www.ne.jp

Page 6

PatRiotisM


Israel’s military utilizes a system of national mandatory service. Politicians claim that the only way the country survives is through conscription. The United States of America’s military is a volunteer fighting force. Though the two countries certainly have different military goals

and requirements, an examination of the two different systems will reveal which is the more successful and beneficial of the two.

In Israel, most 18-year-old men and women serve for two and three years. Other forms of national service are avail-able, but none quite as prevalent as military duty. In addi-tion, after serving on regular duty, an Israeli man or woman must serve in the reserve forces until his or her mid-forties.

Israelis say that this is a necessity to protect themselves from the aggressive surrounding Arab nations. They argue that the only way to match the manpower of the surrounding Arab armies is to demand the service of nearly every capable person in Israel. While this may have been true in 1948, when Israel was founded, today is a different story. America’s troubles in Iraq and Vietnam show that a large military force is not the deciding fac-tor in a conflict wrought with gorilla warfare. Proper training and dedicated soldiers are the foundations of a successful fighting force.

The Israeli Army has, on a limited basis, taken ac-count of this reality and adopted new techniques for dealing with urban guerilla warfare. However, it was unable to defeat the Hezbollah army in their more rural guerilla war in 2006.

For Americans, our only duty to the government comes in the form of taxes. No requirement exists for military ser-vice. But there have been times in the past when our government has called for a draft, the conscription of citizens to the military.

The draft has its origins in the Civil War, when both the United States and the Confederate States instituted one. We live in a free society where involuntary servitude should be recognized as involuntary, contrary to the values of freedom that we, as Ameri-cans, hold dear. The values of freedom that we claim to fight for advocate the conscription of no man or woman. It is for us, loyal and patriotic citizens, to decide on our own terms, on our own ac-cord whether we see service in the military as a valuable pursuit.

The Civil War draft led to dreadful riots in New York City. Sixty Years later, in World War I, contentious objectors to the war were imprisoned. In even World War II, seemingly the most just war in American history, there were those who refused to serve. These

Americans were imprisoned. The controversial Vietnam War led to widespread sentiment against compulsory servitude in the military. Again, these Americans were prosecuted and it was not until the pres-idency of Jimmy Carter that these draft dodgers would be pardoned.

In Israel it is easier to get out of the draft; there are more pos-sible exceptions. Intense religious study is one possible way out, and the most common method for Observant Jews. In addition there are physical and psychological exceptions. The religious study excep-tion often angers many secular Israeli citizens, who themselves must serve. Many feel that religious study itself is valuable, but it cannot overcome the necessities of fighting for Israel. This is a clear injus-tice that may cause unnecessary resentment within the Israeli army.

Similarly America’s drafts can be equally unfair, biased on a socioeconomic basis. The poor always face the prospect of con-scription more seriously than do the rich. In the Civil War, those who could pay a fee didn’t have to serve. In the Vietnam War, those possessing the means to secure a college education did not have to serve in the early years of the war. Additionally, the well connected would secure their children spots in the National Guard, which didn’t send many soldiers to Vietnam or question-able medical exemptions. Once again this is another injustice that may lead to unnecessary resentment within the US military.

The perception of a fighting force can often affect the out-come of battle. If the opposition thinks that every soldier is dedi-cated to the effort, then they will certainly have more fear of the enemy. But if the opposition thinks that every soldier is not com-pletely dedicated to the effort, then they will be even more de-voted to their oppositional cause. This can be the case when look-ing at a volunteer fighting force compared to a conscripted one. The opposition knows that in a volunteer fighting force that each soldier chose to be there, whereas in a conscripted force the op-position knows that some soldiers may not want to be there.

Every branch of the armed forces needs committed sol-diers not conscripted soldiers. The armed forces, and war in general, need soldiers who will be committed to the cause for which they may give their last full measure of devotion. The brave men and women of the armed forces need to know that everyone fighting with them is truly fighting with them.

Freedom is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happi-ness. The end result of freedom cannot come at the cost of the means. The means cannot violate freedom. Conscription does just that.

Uncle Sam Shouldn’t Demand You for the Army

By Ben Jacobson

An Argument Against the Draft

Courtesy of Picture HistoryPage 7


issue 3-

On February 9, 1950, after three uneventful years in the U.S. Sen-ate in which he was voted “the worst U.S.

senator” in office by the Senate press corps, Senator Joseph McCarthy delivered a star-tling accusation in his so-called “Wheeling speech.” Declared McCarthy, “I have here in my hand, a list of 205- a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shap-ing policy in the State Department.” Although he actually had no evidence to support any of his claims, McCarthy became instantly popu-lar and extremely powerful. The turmoil of the years succeeding World War II had left the cit-izens of the United States frightened and gull-ible, and they willingly believed his charges.

In the four years during which the Wis-consin Senator was at the height of his power, McCarthy derided and damaged many po-litical figures. Liberals who supported “New Deal” policies were criticized of being soft on Communism, and anyone with even the slightest connection to the Soviet Union was accused of being a subversive or a spy. Even though many were innocent of any wrongdo-ing, those suspected usually lost their jobs and their respect, and were sometimes even sent

death threats by angry and misled citizens. Frightened legislators passed the Internal Se-curity Act of 1950, which restricted the civil liberties of suspected Communists. This led to gross suspensions of personal liberties as McCarthyists were able to manipulate the facts so that any person or institution could fit their definition of Communism. People started to choose their words carefully, for fear of possibly hinting at Communist in-

volvement. The basic freedoms of speech and of the press were suddenly fading away.

It was only in 1954 that McCarthy was finally exposed. On March 9, 1954, broad-cast journalist pioneer Edward R. Murrow aired a documentary on the TV series See It Now detailing the harm caused by Senator McCarthy. “His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as be-tween the internal and the external threats of Communism,” stated Murrow. After the documentary, McCarthy went down about 11 percentage points in public opinion polls.

Fifty years after the death of Joseph McCa-rthy, the post-9/11 atmosphere in our country is eerily similar to the America of the fifties. The distinguishing features of McCarthyism are as clearly present now, in the midst of the Iraq War, as they were fifty years ago in the midst of the Cold War. Kevin Lin Reports on...

“McCarthyists were able to ma-nipulate the facts so any person or institution could fit their defi-

nition of Communism.”

New

Edward R. Murrow

Karl Rove

Joseph McCarthyjalopnik.com

www.archive.org

www.cpnys.org

Page 8

PatRiotisM


A knockout blow to McCarthy came about one month later, in the “Army-McCa-rthy hearings” that convened on April 22, 1954. Angry that one of his aides was drafted into the United States Army, the Senator at-tacked the military, claiming that Commu-nists had infiltrated it. As the Senate began televised hearings on the issue, McCarthy failed to come up with any evidence of trea-son. “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” the Army’s chief counsel, John Welch, asked McCarthy as the senator tried to debase the Army’s lawyer as a communist.

What proved more important than McCarthy’s lack of evidence, however, was the public’s newfound negative perception of him, as viewers found McCarthy to be arrogant and dishonest. Said Senator Stu-

art Symington, “The American people have had a look at you for six weeks. You are not fooling anyone.” Following the hearings, the Senate finally gathered the power neces-sary to condemn the Wisconsin politician of “unbecoming conduct,” and he became the fourth censured senator in the history of the United States. Three years later, Jo-seph McCarthy was dead, and after a special

election was succeeded by William Prox-mire, who called McCarthy “a disgrace to Wisconsin, to the Senate, and to America.”

The United States was ready to close the book on McCarthyism once and for all.

Yet, fifty years after McCarthy’s death, the post-9/11 atmosphere in our country is eerily similar to the America of the fifties. The distinguishing features of McCarthyism: charges without evidence, gross partisan-ship, and censorship of information all under the guise of patriotism, are as clearly present now, in the midst of the Iraq War, as they were fifty years ago in the midst of the Cold War.

The current administration’s ap-proach to the War on Terror best exempli-fies this return to McCarthyist policies. In 2005, White House adviser Karl Rove gave a speech to the New York State Conserva-tive Party condemning liberals for being soft on terror, an act reminiscent of McCarthy’s attacks on “soft on communism” liberals. “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted

to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,” said Rove. “Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: ‘We will defeat our enemies.’ Liberals saw what happened to us and said: ‘We must understand our en-emies.’” The speech was an instant success.

The return to McCarthyism has been exemplified by the government’s oppres-sion of Muslims living in America. The sim-ilarities between the government’s treat-ment of Muslims now and the treatment of Eastern Europeans fifty years ago are very apparent and disturbing. In addition to increased spying and monitoring by gov-ernment intelligence agencies, informants are actually recruited and placed into com-munities to collect information. The infor-mant system, which has been used to bring six men in Fort Dix, New Jersey, to trial, is unbelievably flawed. As stated in a Time Magazine article by Amanda Ripley about the Fort Dix Six, “[Informants] are not un-dercover FBI agents; they are untrained

civilians who need something- badly. Usu-ally, they need money or a way to reduce their prison sentences or avoid deportation. Many have criminal records, and the Justice Department's Inspector General reported in 2005 that 10% of a sampling of informants had committed new, unauthorized crimes while working for the FBI.” The incentive of the informant to bring about convictions unavoidably conflicts with the incentives of the justice system. The informant system seems to reverse “innocent until proven guilty”; every Muslim is suspected of be-ing a terrorist or of supporting terrorism.

In the recent conspiracy at Fort Dix, New Jersey, six Muslim men were accused of plotting to kill soldiers at the Fort Dix military base, yet the man on whom the

whole case is based is an unreliable infor-mant- an Egyptian immigrant who has been in and out of jail, arrested multiple times and whom the government has tried to de-port repeatedly. Based on this informant who had infiltrated the group, the case had

The Origins of McCartyism

The late 1940s and early 1950s were turbulent years for the United States, as the widening influence of Communism seemed to threaten U.S. interests across the world. Even before the end of World War II in 1945, American officials were seriously concerned by the influence of the Soviet Union. With the growing rift between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. becoming ever more present through events such as the Potsdam Conference, “Long Telegram,” and “Iron Curtain” speech, the U.S. developed the policy of con-tainment and the Truman Doctrine. Said Truman, “[It] must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted sub-jugation by armed minorities or outside pressures.” In effect, the U.S.’s goal was to limit the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence as much as possible. This policy sparked a more than forty-year long Cold War between the world’s two greatest powers. It was from this atmosphere- the Cold War’s cautious beginning- that McCarthyism was brought to the forefront of American life.

“His primary achievement has been in confusing the public

mind,” stated Murrow.

“The similarities between the gov-ernment’s treatment of Muslims now and Eastern Europeans fifty

years ago are very disturbing.”

“The Fort Dix Six case has been built on “maybes” and incon-

sistent data based on the infor-mant who infiltrated the group.

Page 9


issue 3-

been built on “maybes” and inconsistent data. In one instance, a paintball game was referred to as “tactical training.” The bulk of the “evidence” is recorded conversations between the men and the informant; these recordings reek of foul play. The informant, obviously, had the option of turning his re-cording devices on and off- and thus editing the material recorded. Ripley writes, “the informant’s recording devices…malfunc-tioned multiple times during the investiga-tion, according to defense attorneys who have seen transcripts of the conversations. While some malfunctions are understand-able, they can be a sign that the informant was censoring his conversations.” In ad-dition, the informant has been caught on one occasion trying to pass false informa-

tion to the police. Clearly, some informants are not reliable- the government’s reliance on them shows the increasing disregard for evidence and due process of the law.

Unfortunately, in conjunction with the “guilty before innocent” policy that incorporated informants, more pressure is being put on educators and profes-sors who support viewpoints contrary to the government’s. Professors and teach-ers who have been against certain govern-ment actions are marked as “unpatriotic,” “anti-Israeli,” or “sympathetic to terrorists.” Right-wing media outlets such as Campus Watch, the David Project, and FrontPage Magazine, often attack individuals and or-ganizations in an attempt to limit diver-sity of opinion and to promote unques-tioned acceptance of the administration.

The similarities between the political environments of present-day America and 1950s America are startling. Just as the Amer-ica of the McCarthyism era feared Com-munist espionage and atomic bombs, the America of the post-9/11 era fears possible terrorist attacks. Just as people in the fifties defined patriotism as being staunchly against the Soviet Union, people in modern times de-fine patriotism as opposing the Middle East.

Fortunately, for the most part, post-millennium America has become much more tolerant of different peoples than the segre-gated America of the fifties. However, our

attitude towards terrorism threatens the gains of the last fifty years. Patriotism has been defined as devotion to one’s country. Just as we decry the dark period of McCa-rthyism in the 1950s, we must rally against

McCarthyism in the twenty-first century to be truly patriotic. As Edward R. Murrow stated to conclude his 1954 documentary: “We must not confuse dissent with disloy-alty. We must remember always that ac-cusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of an-other. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our his-tory and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.”

Targeted fortheir Beliefs

Joseph Massad, a professor in the Middle East Languages and Cul-tures Department at Columbia, was accused of being “un-American” and “anti-Israeli” after supposedly yelling at a student for denying that Israeli atrocities against Palestinians were committed. Three other students who were present at the class had no recollection of the event, but did remember strangers coming into the classroom to observe the professor and to ask questions about Mr. Mas-sad’s beliefs.

Nadia Abu El-Haj is a professor at Barnard College who wrote a book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and archaeology. She has been accused of being anti-Israeli, of denying the existence of the Jewish religion, and of fabricating evidence for her book. Yet, in reality, some of the quotes that were used by the media to prove their point were completely fictitious, and others were not even interpreted in context. Still, she has been discred-ited as a professor and criticized by many media groups based on the false data that had been disclosed.

Debbie Almontaser is a New York City public high school prin-cipal who was forced to resign from her new Arabic/English secondary school after she did not condemn students for wearing shirts that said Intifada NYC (“intifada” is Arabic for shaking off, although it is usu-ally defined in English as rebellion). When interviewed afterward, she reports being forced by Bloomberg to resign. Had she held her posi-tion as principal, the school would have been closed down by the city.

“The government’s reliance on informants shows the increas-ing disregard for due process.”

www.columbia.edu

www.nypost.com

“Our attitude towards terror-ism threatens the gains of the

last fifty years.”

Page 10

PatRiotisM


We can all recall that day. The day marked down as one of the most tragic events to have occurred the his-tory of the United States; a day whose calamity has left perpetual scars on

all of us that will continue to haunt us in the years to come.. September 11th, 2001 changed our lives dramatically. We were scared, hurt, confused, and angered beyond belief. Daunted by overcoming fear and pain, everything we thought we knew was suddenly subject to question. Even though we didn’t nec-essarily keep level heads, we did managed to stay united, and even more so than ever before. We found strength within our-selves to form that unity; we derived strength from patriotism.

Dominating the Manhattan skyline, the twin towers not only were a symbol of pride for New York, but for the entire country. People all over the world would recognize them as American icons; they represented power, prestige, and even a bit of arrogance. They were two monstrous giants that satisfied the nationalistic pride of Americans with overflowing excess.

Nobody expected what would happen on that clear,

perfect sunny day of September 11th. Why would anyone do this to us? How could someone cause so much pain, so much destruction to the lives of the innocent? Like no oth-er event in history, a common sense of purpose was bring-ing the nation together; all were willing to help and sacrifice themselves for their fellow American. “Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution,” President George W. Bush told Congress. “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” Presi-

dent Bush’s approval ratings soared to 86% after 9/11. He was telling Americans what they wanted to hear – we were going to fight back. Through all the grief, destruction, and chaos, the American flag still rose to wave proudly in the air.

However, we already were fighting back. The public response was overwhelming. People were flooding in from all parts of the country and even all parts of the globe to help amid the destruction of the towers, or just simply to pay tribute to those who had lost loved ones. Fire fighters and police came from all over to help clean up the wreckage

and to help with the ones hurt. There was a huge surge in blood donations in the week after 9/11. For the first time since the horrors of World War II, patriotism was shining through the American people as they showed unprecedent-ed respect and sympathy for the people of New York. Ev-eryone was united under fighting the same cause and this cause was patriotism; the love of one’s country and one’s willingness to do anything for it. It was no longer about yourself; it was about what you could do for your country.

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there,” said George Bush in a statement to Congress. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” Even a week after 9/11, the public response to the event was still extremely heat-ed. People still wanted to do something; they still felt that someone had to pay for what had happened. This tragedy of such great magnitude produced such a strong, uncontrol-lable anger among the American people that actions became rash in the hope to get rid of some of that anger and pain. Incidents of harassment cases and hate crimes erupted; in-

nocent Sikhs and Muslims in America were murdered. The

The sacrifices we were willing to make in the few months after 9/11 are not

the same sacrifices that we are willing to make today.

Ann Althouse

Where DidAll thePatriotism Go?

Through all the grief, destruction, and chaos, the American flag still rose to wave

proudly in the air.

By Aradhna Agarwal

Page 11


issue 3-

wrong people were being blamed, a situation reminiscent of the oppression of the Japanese Americans in concentration camps in the aftermath of World War II. Tragedy fuels the search for an ex-planation or a solution. Polls showed that the support for the War on Terrorism was very high in the months after September 11th, 2001. Even if war was going to cost thousands of troops’ lives, 77% of American people were saying they would “sign up in a minute” for a draft. 66% of Americans supported a long term war even if it meant spending less on education, healthcare, and social security.

For the first time in history, all civilian aircrafts flying into and out of the United States were immediately grounded, while

others were redirected to airports in Canada. The aviation security went under question by the public and was subject to big changes, for it was the weak link that the terrorists exploited. Security in airports in the past several years has changed dramatically with the banning of all sharp objects and even more recently the banning of liquids above 3 oz. 9/11 was a wake-up call for National Security.

On October 26th, 2001 Bush signed the USA PATRIOT

Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appro-priate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) that stated the purpose for fighting terrorism abroad. The Act was passed with a heavy majority in the two houses of Congress despite the ensuing controversy.. At that point, the primary mis-sion was to protect the American people from such a tragedy ever occurring again, even if it meant sacrificing the American peo-ple’s right to privacy. Even though it was something that plenty were willing to sacrifice at the time, it’s a different story today.

The sacrifices we were willing to make in the few months after 9/11 are not the same sacrifices that we are willing to make today. Many of us are regretting the sacrifices we made. Bush’s ap-proval ratings have plummeted to 32% while penetratingly dis-turbing, negative reports about the war in Iraq have caused pes-simistic views of the war to rise to a new high. 64% of Americans say that the war is not worth fighting. Yes we were angry, yes we were traumatized, and yes we were patriotically inclined to take immediate action – but, was it really worth it to act so rashly af-ter 9/11? 77% of Americans believe that the country is now on the wrong track. Patriotism is falling back to its former hazed self in the absence of tragedy or political event. Do we really need tragedy to keep the country united under a patriotic cause? Are we forgetting all the array of emotions that we felt on 9/11?

Through all the grief, destruction, and chaos, the American flag still rose to wave proudly

in the air.

American Patriot Friends Network

Page 12

PatRiotisM


The United States national debt has reached an awe-inspiring $9.15 trillion, according to the chair of the Budgetary Com-

mittee of the House of Representatives. It is estimated that every American would have to donate $30,000 in order to eliminate this debt. It is paramount that the American peo-ple call for a return to fiscal responsibility in the United States government. It is a basic principle of public finance, once touted by conservatives, that the most wasteful govern-ment spending should be eliminated first.

It follows logically to examine the base budget from which cuts should be made: President Bush’s $555 billion spending bill signed on December 27th. The House of Representatives reports that about 21% of the Federal Budget is spent on defense spending; other significant categories include Social Se-curity and welfare, mandatory spending for daily operation of the government, Medi-

care, and compensation for war veterans. The Chair of the House Budgetary Committee estimates that the Federal defense budget has increased by 60% since the inauguration of President George W. Bush. A quick com-parison of the proportional defense budget of the U.S. with those of other industrialized nations reveals that the otherwise conser-vative American government grossly out-spends them all in one category: defense.

It is important to note that the United States’ defense spending officially excludes the $141.7 billion appropriated in 2007 for the Iraq War and for antiterrorist opera-tions in Afghanistan, but remains by far the largest single category in the overall bud-get. Aside from the minority of this latter budget intended for Afghanistan, it could be argued that the separation of the defense and war budgets arises from the inability of the $141.7 billion to be reconciled with the other interests of the United States. There is no other area in which such a significant

The United States has an earth-shattering national debt of $9.15 trillion. As the econ-omy suffers, the U.S. continues to pour money into an inefficient and ineffective de-fense budget. William Manning reports on how to solve this national crisis.

DANGEROUSDEFENSE

www.abacus-consulting.com

Page 13


issue 3-

sum of findings could be conceivably allocated. When incorporat-ing several other defense-related projects and the development of nuclear weapons, which is done through the Department of Energy, the total military budget adds up to about $626 billion. The scores of extraneous defense projects done under other bud-getary titles likely conceal billions of extra dollars in spending.

One major problem with the defense budget is its profound lack of oversight. According to the taxpayer watchdog group Tax-payers for Common Sense, the 2005 defense budget contained over 2,671 earmarks, or pet projects, worth a combined total of $12.2 bil-lion. In 2001, a Department of Defense audit revealed that the 2001 defense budget contained $1 trillion in “unsupported accounting en-tries to the Department of Defense.” Little has been done to correct these accounting failures. In addition, the classified discretionary defense budget brings up a number of questions regarding its shady usage. This budget, while essential for secret operations of the gov-ernment, is virtually impossible to police. Here, money is often spent frivolously. For example, $3 million was allocated for a children’s’ golfing center in South Carolina. These inconsistencies elaborate on the already obvious notion that the defense budget is largely dictated by national lobbies, special interest groups, and defense corporations.

Instead of protecting American interests, the defense budget cakes on another layer of debts, accumulated in the form of bonds is-sued across the world. Despite U.S. defense spending, the technolog-ical benefit to the American arsenal has been minimal, as the goals of the majority of projects funded are to upgrade and to replace existing weapons systems. A mere 2.5% of the defense budget goes to “Sci-ence and Technology,” so few scientifically developed breakthroughs are likely. In turn, this means that potential competitors will easily be able to close the technology gap between the U.S. and themselves.

Largely because of reckless defense spending, American bonds sold overseas have made the U.S. economy more dependent than ever on foreign monetary support, with the second largest worldwide de-fense spender, China, being the largest U.S. debt holder. China holds immense economic power over the United States with its ability to collapse the dollar by dumping American bonds, and with its huge trade surplus of $213 billion dollars with the U.S. Two other oil com-petitors with strategic power over the U.S. economy, Russia and Sau-di Arabia, also hold substantial American debt. Our debt enriches ri-val states, while diminishing our economic power, which can be used for geopolitical purposes to an effect often greater than military force.

Because of the grave threat to American fiscal security, the United States’ defense budget should be reduced significantly, rec-ognizing the enormous degree of existing U.S. and NATO mili-tary superiority. Substantial liabilities could arise from maintain-ing our current level of defense spending. In 2001, when America faced the severe blow of the September 11th attacks, the Treasury Department was able to offer meaningful economic aid after the attacks to prevent a major implosion of the economy. Unfortu-nately, seven years later, the American government is in financial disarray, and will be unable to offer much assistance in the event of a catastrophe without adding to its already monumental debts.

There are several reasons why the United States should continue to have a large military budget regardless of the current financial crisis that demands some cuts. Firstly, there are many le-gitimate, and essential uses for American military power overseas to protect America, and the international community. One example

where intervention might be necessary is in Pakistan, a state harbor-ing scores of radical Islamists and nuclear weapons, all controlled by the rouge dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf. Secondly, the growth of many developed economies likely foreshadow in-creased defense spending for new rivals. Thirdly, North Korea, Iran, and other rogue states present possible threats to our coun-try’s security. Finally, many American jobs in the defense industry would be lost by an extreme cut in defense spending. While some valid reasons exist not to eliminate the defense budget, moderate cuts would result in relatively little damage to the U.S. economy.

There are, in fact, practical solutions to address defense over-spending. Pay-as-you-go defense budgeting is one potentially effec-tive way to combat deficit spending, as spending proposals would require review before validation. Some provision for well-defined emergency spending may be included that would be exempt from such thorough review. The disastrous Iraq War certainly will not safe-guard us from a future September 11th, nor will our more worthwhile efforts in Afghanistan. An effective pullout strategy from Iraq would be an effective means of reducing the amount of money spent on military operations. Additional money could be saved by removing U.S. troops from bases used during the Cold War and World War II.

Both taxpayers and lawmakers must vigilantly defend public budgets from pork spending. Even if we fail to take effective action, the defense budget, however massive, is not sufficient to destroy the Amer-ican economy single-handedly. But it should help us, not our enemies.

Pay-as-you-go SpendingThe system of paying for services as they are in-curred- The American Heritage Dictionary

EarmarkingAs defined by the Congressional Research Service: Provisions associated with legislation that specify certain congressional spending priorities or in revenue bills that apply to a very limited number of individuals or entities. Earmarks may appear in either the legislative text or report language.

2007-2008 Military Spending in $US

0 200 400 600 800

U.S.

E.U.

China

Russia

Rest of WorldDANGEROUSDEFENSE

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, 2007

Page 14

PatRiotisM


The Minuteman Project

By Eric Schwartz

How citizens are taking the law into their own hands...and jeop-ardizing the law because of it.

www.willharper.com

www.godsworldphotography.org

airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com

www.signonsandiego.com

www.jimgilchrist.com

Fir0002

From John Adams’ 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts to current illegal immigration legisla-tion, immigration has been an important issue for the American government. How-ever, some citizens have begun to take the

law into their own hands. The most recent manifestation of the immigration debate is seen on our northern and south-ern borders with the establishment of “border guards,” independent groups with the goal of preventing illegal im-migration into our country. The most well-known and con-troversial group of self-appointed “border guards” is the Minuteman Project. The stated motive of the Minuteman Project is to contribute to stopping terrorism within the Unites States. However, the Minuteman Project and other groups like it have come under international scrutiny for partaking in vigilante justice and associating with white su-premacist groups. Although the Minuteman Project poses as a patriotic organization determined to uphold American values, the “border guards” are fostering white suprema-cist and anti-immigrant sentiment. As such, they do not uphold American values, but rather blaspheme the Ameri-can spirit. Paradoxically, the group has not even been suc-cessful in its stated goal of combating illegal immigration.

The Minuteman Project, which describes itself as “a citizens’ Neighborhood Watch on our border,” was co-founded by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox in October 2004. Gilchrist founded the organization because, ac-cording to www.minutemanproject.com, he “believes he is only one of millions…who want the U.S. to remain governed by the ‘rule of law’ and who want proactive en-forcement of our national security protections and our im-migration legal code.” The Minuteman Project quickly grew from the vision of a couple men to a national organization with political capital. Although President Bush criticized the “border guards” as hindering American law enforce-ment agencies from doing their jobs, other notable fig-ures, such as Governor of California Arnold Schwarzeneg-ger, have expressed support for the Minuteman Project.

One of the major problems with the Minutemen Project is that the minutemen do not actually help de-crease illegal immigration, meaning that the entire proj-ect is a complete waste of resources. The group has been met with success in terms of reporting the illegal cross-ing of personages from Mexico, but the minutemen, par-ticularly on the Arizona-Mexico border, where 51% of

illegal immigrants actually enter the United States, are tripping border sensors, to which Border Patrol officers are obligated to respond to. In the time spent reacting to false alarms, thousands of immigrants that otherwise would have been caught are allowed to enter into the U.S.

The Minuteman Project, although not formally a rac-ist organization, has attracted white supremacist and other ethno-homogenous organizations to it like moths to a flame. Although the official code of the Minuteman Project is to not to communicate with illegal immigrants, the minutemen do have the opportunity to harass, demean, and cause bodily harm to illegal immigrants crossing the border. According to Shawn Walker, a spokesman for the Neo-Nazi National Alli-ance, his members plan to participate in Minuteman events, although not as an organized group, but as “individuals.” The Minuteman Project has also been advertised and sup-ported by other white supremacist and separatist organiza-tions such as the Aryan Nation and The National Alliance.

The Neo-Nazi movement now has it’s own or-ganization on the border, designed to collaborate with Minuteman Project Neo-Nazi members, called the Bor-der Guardians. The group is headed by Laine Lawless, a former Simcox disciple. Tactics used to discourage im-migration include the following, as written in an e-mail from Lawless: “Steal the money from any illegal walk-ing into a bank,” “discourage Spanish-speaking children from going to school,” and create propaganda “warning that any further illegal immigrants will be shot, maimed or seriously messed-up upon crossing the border.”

In addition to organized support from various ethno-homogenous organizations, individuals have been inspired by the actions and ideals of the Minuteman Project. Patrick Haab, an army veteran, held captive seven non-citizen Mexi-cans, at gun point, on a hunch that they were illegal immigrants. Multiple attacks have been carried out on Mexicans, some of whom are American citizens, and several murders in the Ari-zona desert have been traced to Border Guardian members.

It is instances like these that prove that the law should not be taken into the hands of a few radical individuals. The men and woman working for our government by patrolling our borders are highly trained professionals, and better fit to handle illegal immigration than the minutemen. Groups such as the Minuteman Project not only have incredibly racist elements, but are also inconsistent with American values and threaten to hinder the progress of our nation.

Page 15


issue 3-

Fir0002

A few weeks ago an American diplomat left Stela Dencheva in distress by rejecting her visa appli-cation to the U.S. for the fourth time. A single fifteen minute interview decided whether or not Dencheva, a working Bulgarian citizen, could visit

her parents, siblings, and son who all currently reside in New York. The American visa process allows for only a subjective view of a

visa applicant, formed during a short interview, to determine whether a visa should be granted. In order restore a semblance of equality, this process should be less subjective and the interviewer should have more time with the candidate to decide whether a visa should be granted.

Dencheva’s first attempt on the visa-granting process was in 2002, when she was denied a visa because she was considered a poten-tial immigrant; in other words, because customs suspected she would stay illegally. The fifty-year-old American immigration law states that applicants, who have the “intent to immigrate,” even legally, should not be granted a visa. According to the law, American diplomats should assume every applicant wants to immigrate to the U.S., until the candidate can convince them otherwise. Dencheva’s plans to visit America, five years later, were once again blocked by this same law.

Around the world, travel and migration from country to country is becoming more and more common. With over 175 million migrants in the world, the United Nation Population Division estimated that the migrant population has doubled in the past thirty-three years. The growing rate of international migration has made developed countries take certain measures to limit the number of people migrating. Most developed countries also wish to decrease their immigration rates as a result of growing worries with the economic, social, political, and demographic consequences of this migration. Visas are the way most

countries regulate and observe the migration through their borders.But compared to our counterparts in Europe and Asia, Ameri-

can visas are some of the toughest to get. The more foreigners wish to visit the U.S, the more the narrow-minded American visa policies deny these men and women, whether they are tourists, students, or businessmen, entrance into our country. The problem is that while visa applicants are assumed to secretly plan to immigrate, they are only

given a few minutes, during an interview at their American embassy, to prove their case otherwise. Successful applications accomplish this mainly through discussing their strong familial ties to their country.

“The interview is extremely important,” claims a student from LaGuardia College who had been through the system quite a few times. “It’s that first impression that seems to make the per-son decide whether to give you a visa or not…I think the most important thing in the process is [the diplomat’s] subjective opin-ion of you.” Shouldn’t the visa process be objective and unbiased? If a person’s visa status is to be put in the hands of a diplomat, shouldn’t the diplomat be given more time to form a decision?

According to the Yale Center for the Study of Global-ization, “The visa process does not take into account the qual-ity of the candidates or their credentials… becoming an ar-bitrary lottery rather than a merit-based selection process.”

When asked to describe the inter-view process, the student from LaGuardia said.

“The interviews were pretty quick. They asked me a bunch of questions like, ‘Why do you want to go to America so much?’, ‘Who do you know in America?’, and ‘Has anyone else in your family been there?’ I told them I wanted to go to America to see my grandparents and my cousins. I told them I wanted to see New York City. My fourth interview, that’s when I got the visa.”

The visa policies are designed to allow only the people that will not harm America’s security and safety visit the country. The State Department’s Visa Services confirm that, “the U.S. has up-dated its visa policies to increase security for our citizens and visi-tors.” These policies assure that the visitors and foreigners enter-ing the country are not harming America but contributing to it. Whether they help develop America’s strong education systems, help stabilize the economy, or spread cultural knowledge, it is impor-tant that America allows people like Stela Dencheva to enter while also maintaining the security of the country. The United States has much to lose but little to gain from unfairly restrictive visa policies.

By Antonia Antonova

“It is important that America allows people like Stela Dencheva to enter while main-taining the security of the country. The

United States has much to lose but little to gain from unfairly restrictive visa policies.”

“The American visa process allows for only a subjective view of a visa applicant, formed

during a short interview.”

www.time.com

Page 16

PatRiotisM


In 1892, the Baptist minister Francis Bellamy, editor of Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine, launched an advertising campaign to sell flags to children across the nation. Bellamy created a 15-second “pledge” to go along with the flag and celebrate the 400th anniversary of Colum-

bus’ arrival to the Americas. The pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All.” The Pledge of Allegiance was born.

By the 1950’s the Pledge had become of a symbol of America and the words “under God” were added to create a difference between the atheist Communist Soviet Union. Those words, while generally popular at the time, especially in years of Red Scares and bomb drills, today are criticized as violating the separation of church and state.

Although some may feel that reciting the Pledge of Al-legiance is a patriotic act, the addition of the words “under God,” has caused unnecessary controversy and divisiveness. Bills to make the oath mandatory have been introduced in eight states: Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missis-sippi and Missouri. Just as a pledge that acknowledges an athe-ist belief system would be intolerant of those who believe in a God, so is one that does profess a belief in a specific God.

In late 1892, President Benjamin Harrison issued a proclama-tion stating that the Pledge was to be used in public schools during Co-lumbus Day observances. In 1924, the phrase “my Flag” was changed to “the Flag of the United States of America,” in an attempt to clarify for immigrants the flag to which they were pledging allegiance. In 1945, the U.S. Congress recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge.

Even before the controversial phrase “under God” was added, there were critics of the Pledge. In 1940, The Supreme Court, in a case called Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools were required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Even students who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group who consid-ered the pledge to be idolatry, were forced to participate. In 1943, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. The Court now argued that requir-ing students to recite the pledge violated First Amendment rights.

In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower sat in the District of Columbia Presbyterian church listening to a sermon by Minister George MacPherson Docherty. Docherty called for the phrase “un-der God” to be added to the pledge in what he considered an attempt

to unify the nation by invoking a phrase from the Gettysburg Address. President Dwight Eisenhower subsequently supported and signed a bill that inserted the phrase “under God” after “… one nation.”

Since then, there have been three major court cases that have addressed the phrase “under God.” In 2002, atheist Dr. Mi-chael Newdow, whose young daughter was learning the Pledge of

Allegiance, argued that incorporating the phrase “under God” vio-lated the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring the recitation of the pledge in public schools was unconstitutional. In 2004, the Supreme Court rejected New-dow’s case on technical procedural grounds, avoiding any con-

Separation of No Church and State

An Argument Against “Under God” in the Pledge

By Will Dubbs

Dr. Michael Newdow, an avowed Atheist, has fought the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance

Page 17


issue 3-

sideration of the issue of the “under God” clause. In 2005, New-dow and three other families took up the case again. The District Court ruled in their favor and as a result, Judge Lawrence Karlton enjoined the school district from continuing to lead children into pledging allegiance “under God.” In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, a Federal District Court ruled that a state law requir-ing students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, even if students were allowed to opt out with parental permission.

These cases establish that courts believe that requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase “under God,” is un-constitutional. However, there are still many who support keeping the phrase. In a legal assessment of the case done by the Pew Forum, a group that “seeks to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs,” the school district in the 2004 Newdow case argued that “the United States has a long tra-

dition of including ‘non-sectarian’ references to God in ceremonial settings. These include Presidential Inaugural Addresses… the ap-pearance of the national motto “In God We Trust” on the currency of the United States… and the call with which each Supreme Court ses-sion opens: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court.’”

Their second argument was the Pledge was a “patriotic state-ment, not a religious one.” The supporters argued that “under God” simply acknowledges the “importance of religion in the history of the Untied States, and especially the Founders’ understanding that they were acting under God’s guidance.” The article went on to say

that “[i]f the Pledge may not be re-cited in public school… students will be deprived of this understand-ing of our historical self-conception, and will thus be left with an impov-erished, overly secularized view of American history and ideals.” Justice Ferdinand Fernandez, who was the only judge who did not vote in favor of Newdow in 2002, believed that “‘God Bless America’ and ‘America the Beautiful’ will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Ban-ner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying from the third. And currency beware!”

Many influential politicians also took a position on the issue of retracting “under God” from the

Pledge of Allegiance. Senator Kit Bond (R- Missouri), in an inter-view with CNN, said that the ruling in 2002 in the Ninth Circuit Court

was “the worst kind of political correctness run amok.” While some believe that this is a distinction among party lines, there were Demo-crats who were not in favor of the court’s decision, including Rep-resentative Richard Gephardt (D- Missouri). “I think the decision is poorly thought out,” said Gephardt in 2002, “That’s why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed.”

The most controversial aspect of the Pledge of Allegiance remains the phrase “under God.” Opponents say that United States should respect the separation of church and state. In 2002, New-dow argued that the 1954 version of the Pledge that includes “under God” is religious and reciting the Pledge is therefore a “religious ex-ercise.” He adds that the Pledge refers to only one God, thus im-plicitly supporting monotheism and rejecting atheism or polythe-ism. Other critics of the Pledge add that the phrase “under God” should be removed because it only brings controversy. A New York Times editorial from September 19, 2005 argued that “the phrase ‘under God’ was inserted into the pledge in 1954 in an absurd at-tempt to link patriotism with religious piety at the height of anti-Communist mania. It should never have happened.” It goes on to say that the phrase “is no more a constitutional violation than singing ‘God Bless America’ at the Army-Navy football game.”

The Pledge is a symbol of America. As it has become in-creasingly mandatory for students, employees and soldiers to recite the Pledge it must be tolerant of everyone’s belief system including that of atheists. The words “under God” do violate the constitutional separation of church and state. Proponents of “under God” have ar-gued that the phrase is “non-sectarian” and only “affirm[s] the so-lemnity or seriousness of certain occasions….” On the other hand, Dr. Newdow argued said, “Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their heads, and say, ‘We are one nation that denies God exists. I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, ‘Oh, what harm is that?’ They’d be furious.

Peggy Rae Border

Just as a pledge that acknowledges an athe-ist belief system would be intolerant of those

who believe in a God, so is one that does profess a belief in a specific God.

The argument over the Pledge of Allegiance has brought controversy to children.

Page 18

PatRiotisM


In remarks to the Ten Point Nation-al Leadership Foundation in 2005, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton stated, “Faith gives us a broadly held belief in the im-

portance of basic moral principles: the need to care for each other, the need to protect the vul-nerable, to refrain from violence, to do unto oth-ers as we would have them do unto us.” Religion gives individuals a set of principles that promote ethical behavior. Faith should therefore be one of the forces that guide the decisions of govern-ment officials. However, religion should not play a significant role in the election process. Faith is a personal relationship with God that candidates should not exploit to enhance their campaigns.

Candidates should not discuss religion during elections since voters favor candidates who practice a similar religion to their own and often reject candidates of faiths unfamil-iar to them. In the 1928 election, Democratic presidential candidate Alfred E. Smith suffered from anti-Catholic prejudice. Smith, the first Irish Catholic to run for president on a major

party ticket, lost to Quaker Herbert Hoover. Voters feared that Smith would put the Pope before the Constitution. Today, twenty-five percent of people report that they are less likely to vote for a candidate if he or she is a Mormon. This creates an unfair disadvantage for candidates like Republican Mitt Romney, who has the necessary political qualifications to be elected president but practices Mor-monism. In the U.S. Constitution, Article Six, clause three states, “[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any of-fice or public trust under the United States.” Voters today, however, judge a candidate’s character on his or her religious background.

Creating a false sense of unity with voters by manipulating religious beliefs is deceitful and disrespectful to the members of the faith. Pan-dering to religious groups in order to receive the evangelical vote is equally inappropriate. Faith, a sacred relationship with God, should not be exploited for political gain. Republican presi-dential candidate and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee has exploited the Christian faith in

order to appeal to voters. In his commercial “What Really Matters,” Huckabee stands be-fore a glowing Christmas tree as “Silent Night” plays in the background. While he explains the true meaning of Christmas, a figure resembling a white cross gradually moves across the screen until it is precisely behind Huckabee’s head. This advertisement explicitly targets members of the Christian faith who celebrate Christ-mas and consider the cross a symbol of God.

Presidents must make choices in the interests of all Americans, not specific groups, and when a candidate emphasizes religion it shows a potential predilection towards one group over another. In the Faith in America speech Mitt Romney stated, “A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the USA.” Catering to a religious group, cause, or interest creates a religious divide which prevents the unity needed for patriotism.

This blurred distinction between reli-gious unity and patriotism hinders the elec-toral process. Religion does not determine an individual’s patriotism because loyalty to

FAI H ON HE BALLOT

I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from the God who gave us

liberty.- Mitt Romney, Faith in

America Speech, Dec. 6, 2007

By Starlyte Harris

I believe in an America where the separation of church and

state is absolute.- John F. Kennedy, Address to the Greater Houston Ministe-rial Association, Sep. 12, 1960

The Washington Note

The Library of Congress

Page 19


issue 3-

the country does not mean loyalty to a particular cultural, ethnic, or political group. By making elections a religious test, candidates divert attention away from the important domestic and international issues. Huckabee’s campaign targets evangelical voters; instead of discuss-ing politics, he dwells on his faith as a Baptist minister. Likewise, in the 2004 Illinois Senate race candidate Alan Keyes exploited the religious sensibilities of voters to gain a competitive edge. In a 2004 interview at the Republican National Convention Keyes stated, “Christ would not vote for (his opponent) Barack Obama.” His stress on religiosity is not a valid basis on which voters should choose a candidate to support.

Religious tolerance has always been a fundamental American principle; North America first served as a haven for British religious dissenters. It has ensured the essential freedom that allows a sym-phony of religions to coexist. The harmony between citizens creates love and devotion for the country. However, strong religious messages in elections fuel religious intolerance because candidates are forced to associate themselves with some religions and disassociate them-selves with others. Also, by preaching the values of a particular religion candidates exclude people who do not subscribe to their same faith.

In his Faith in America Address, Romney insisted, “[He] will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.” This permits an all-inclusiveness that al-lows Americans to feel united in support for the country. A Protestant president opposing abortion should not force all Americans to agree with his viewpoint. Religion should mostly remain private, because while it unites people who believe in God, it also isolates non-believers. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits congress from establishing one national religion. This prevents government of-ficials from making decisions that reflect a strong religious preference.

While specific religious beliefs should not be emphasized in elec-tions, a president firm in faith has a strong foundation upon which to decide governmental affairs. Faith promotes understanding, self-purifi-cation, peace, love, respect, honesty, and social justice. These values are integral to all religions including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mor-monism. Despite differing rituals, many religions share the same funda-mental principles that lead the members to make moral decisions. Elimi-nation of these values would result in decline of ethical actions. Sixty-one percent of Americans report they would reject an atheist presidential candidate. An atheist may not possess the same moral foundation and ethical awareness as a religious person due to his or her lack of faith. The individual could potentially lack the core values that enhance leadership decisions and encourage good works. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama became a community organizer for a church-based group where he worked to improve conditions in inner-city neighborhoods. His religious experience helped spark an interest in community service, social activism, and politics that wouldn’t have developed otherwise.

In the Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy, who was vying for the presi-dency, stated, “[I believe in an America] where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.” Kennedy, the first Catholic president, assured people that his religious views were personal and should not be consid-ered a factor in the election. It is wrong to reject Romney solely because of his religious faith, just as religious opposition against Kennedy was unjustifiable. In a pluralistic democracy, religion should not determine patriotism. Instead, faith and patriotic devotion must unite Americans.

For over twenty years Barack Obama (above) has been a mem-ber of the Trinity United Church of Christ, and he formerly

worked as a community organizer for churches in Chicago. Mike Huckabee (below), a former pastor, ran a Christmas-themed ad in Iowa, which was met with questions over whether the cross-

shaped window was a ploy to appeal to religious voters or merely accidental.

http://harddrivelife.com

Page 20

PatRiotisM


Concerned about his country’s flirtations with party politics, George Washington said in his farewell address of 1796, “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the commu-

nity with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the ani-mosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.” The Americans ignored his remarks, and thus we have two major American political parties standing today: the Democrats and the Republicans. The United States uti-lizes the “bipartisan system,” in which two political organizations seek to attain power within the government by nominating candi-dates from their respective parties to run for office. As Washington predicted, the parties’ policies tend to contradict one another, and these contradictions create an unnecessary preoccupation with partisanship that is not in the best interest of the United States.

Voters have become engulfed in the metaphorical wave of the Partisan system; thirty-three percent of Americans are registered as Democrats and twenty-nine percent are registered as Republicans, as of 2004. This statistic is indicative of Americans’ deep-rooted in-vestment in this two-party system. The system encourages people to vote for the candidate of their party rather than make a merit-based decision. The bipartisan system fuels a two-way division in the cam-paigning process that divides the country. Candidates shed old pas-sions and highlight specific issues to indulge their respective parties. As a result, the party-registered voter is subject to the glorification of just the issues that resonate with the masses, and other issues that are more sophisticated or less popular are often times neglected. Candi-dates are afraid to take positions that are inconsistent with the tradi-

tional party view for fear of being chastised by fellow party members. One way to stem the unproductive polarization that oc-

curs during elections would be to change from the two-par-ty system to a multi-party system. It would increase oppor-tunity for those with moderate views to run for office and give the voter the chance to submit a more thoughtful vote.

The Democratic Party originated with Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party in the late eighteenth century and generally supported small farmers and strong state government. In 1854, former Whigs, mostly to stop the spread of slavery into the

Louisiana Purchase, founded the Republican Party. The original Democratic Party platforms focused on limited Federal govern-ment and limited taxation, whereas the original Republican Party platform focused more on halting slavery and government regula-tion of industry. The party platforms have changed considerably since the 19th century as new issues emerge and party allegiances switch. For example, in their respective party platforms, the Demo-crats support embryonic stem cell research while the Republicans oppose research. In the debate of this contemporary issue, Demo-crats support active government and Republicans support limited government, a reversal from the party’s original ideologies. Also in the recent 2004 platforms, the two parties propose two com-pletely different methods of preventing future terrorist attacks.

Many of the 2008 Presidential candidates slightly altered their political goals in order to accommodate their party as well as monetary supporters. For example, Democratic presidential hope-ful Hillary Clinton focuses fiercely on strengthening the middle class, mainly through generous tax cuts, and ending the War in Iraq, two very popular issues among Democrats. Meanwhile, she barely touches on the confrontation of radical Jihad and nuclear terrorism, topics that are not stressed in the Democratic platform and have less appeal with Democrats. On the other side of the political spectrum, Republican candidate Mitt Romney dedicates much of his Presi-dential campaign to subjects such as combating illegal immigration, battling Al-Qaeda, preventing nuclear terrorism, and overturning Roe v. Wade, which are not different than the Republican positions in the 2004 party platform. Romney proves an excellent example of how a candidate may alter his or her beliefs in order to gratify

Democratic Platform (DNC) - Raising Minimum Wage, Expanding Pell

Grants, Making College Tuition Tax Deduct-ible

- Eliminating Subsidies for Oil Companies and Developing Energy Alternatives

- Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform

The bipartisan system fuels a two-way division in the cam-paigning process that divides

the country.

Disputing the Two-Party System

By Amelia Ross

Page 21


issue 3-

Immigration reform efforts were thwarted by the partisanship of congress; the two parties could not reach an agreement.

his or her party during a campaign, striving to fit the party mold. Until the beginning of his presidential campaign, Romney claimed to have a strictly “pro-choice” standpoint and support Roe v. Wade.

When candidates suddenly adjust or highlight certain stances to seem more right or left-wing the moment they begin to campaign, they create a country in which the Partisan system and the need to inspire the party bases, rather than the people, dictate which issues are important. When there are two tremendous parties at opposite ends, the middle ground disappears and the argument becomes black and white. Moderate candidates or candidates that possess a mix of Democratic and Republican viewpoints are less likely to succeed.

While the bipartisan system might ensure stability it creates little room for change in campaign approaches and viewpoints. In a rapidly changing world the same arguments over the same is-sues don’t promote positive progress or adaptation to new devel-opments. The people who are willing to think outside the limita-tions of party platforms with the country’s best interests at heart are the ones who could guide America safely into the future, but the current system prevents those types of candidates from win-ning. The respective views of the Democrat and Republican par-ties might balance one another, yet those views are constant and single-minded. The parties’ contrasting views on how to handle

the War on Terror are a prime example: the Democrats claim that general prevention of terrorist activity is sufficient, while Republicans wish to wage an attack on anything possibly terror-ist-related. The unheard moderate voice might suggest a middle

ground that combines different elements of both strategies. With a system that had, say, four parties, there is no reason that those views wouldn’t be balanced; there would be a more comprehen-sive set of views, thereby giving the voter extensively more options.

It is impossible for government to be perfect, but the above-mentioned multi-party system, successfully utilized by Finland, could benefit the United States by allowing for three or more equal-ly powerful political parties to nominate candidates to run for of-fice. In Finland’s case, a candidate from each of the three political parties runs for the Presidency, and the citizens are therefore given more freedom to choose than American citizens. The multi-party system would provide an opportunity to look at a greater number of issues from numerous different angles thereby handing more power to the voter. It would also give candidates with less funding and notoriety a greater chance to win, enhancing our prided American democracy. The bipartisan system restricts openness to new ideas and policies, obliges candidates to present insincere views to in-dulge their respective parties, and limits the extent to which citizens can shape the country in which they live. Only once the bipartisan system is replaced will the voters in fact be able to “rock the vote.”

Republican Platform (RNC) - Permanent Tax Cuts, Restrained

Spending

- Strengthening our Military and our Ties to NATO

- Medical Liability Reform and Curbing Frivolous Lawsuits

[A multi-party system] would give candidates with less funding and notoriety a greater chance to win.

Susan Huffaker

Page 22

PatRiotisM


Mock the

oteBy Spencer Penn

A fit voter should be acquainted with the Presidential Candidates, understand current

issues, and know the different candidates’ views on these issues.

In August of 1979, Pennsylvanian Congressman Mi-chael “Ozzie” Myers was videotaped accepting a bribe of $50,000. He was fined and sentenced to three years in prison for bribery and conspiracy on August 31, 1980, becoming the first Congressman since the Civil

War to be expelled from the House of Representatives. Due to Pennsylvania state election rules, however, he remained on the Democrat Ballot for the 1980 election. Even though the Demo-cratic Party ran Thomas M. Foglietta as an Independent, My-ers still received a significant, almost winning, number of votes.

In response to perceived inadequacies in the American electoral process, there has recently been a forced stimulation of the vote. Campaigns such as “Rock the Vote” or “Vote or Die” have encouraged otherwise uninterested voters to “pull the lever,” while new alternative voting and registering methods potentially give power to the uninformed voter. These new institutions are unpatri-otic because they put elections in the hands of “unfit” voters who do not always act for the benefit or best interest of their country. Seeing as such voters are prominent in America, it may be patriotic to not vote. The converse is also true; it may be unpatriotic to vote.

A fit voter should be acquainted with the Presidential Can-didates, understand current issues, and know the different candidates’ views on these issues. This can be accomplished through numerable easily accessible mediums: newspapers, the Internet, or the evening news. Becoming a fit or well-informed voter offers a number of ben-efits and is not particularly difficult to accomplish. Juxtaposed with the standard definition of patriotism, becoming a fit voter is patriotic.

The theory of Rational Ignorance is one of the most exact methods of explaining why unfit voters exist. This idea states that in some cases, the cost of educating oneself enough to make an informed decision can outweigh the benefits of being able to make that decision well. In the case of voting, unfit voters feel that the cost of becoming informed outweighs the benefits posed by being enabled to cast a well-versed vote. The difference between fit and unfit voters is that the unfit voters are Rationally Ignorant (not bothering to learn the poli-tics of the election just to vote), while the fit are Rationally Informed

(seeing the power in knowledge as well as in their individual vote). Unfit voters, who tend to vote along party lines and ig-

nore candidates’ views, ideas, qualifications, and even felony convictions, should not vote. Unfit voters caused the Penn-sylvania scare of 1980. Foglietta should have won handily and Ozzie Myers should not have received any votes. Even though Myers was convicted and sentenced for bribery, he still re-ceived enough votes to almost win the election while in jail.

It is particularly problematic for the American democracy and electoral process to have an unfit voter cast a ballot. In our system, all votes count equally. The random votes, or party-line votes, of unfit voters cancel out those of individuals who have voted based upon information and reason The one patriotic action unfit voters can take short of educating themselves is to restrain from voting.

In response to what was considered by some to be histori-cally low voting percentages, Rock the Vote and Vote or Die, were created. Rock the Vote, founded in 1990 in close affiliation with MTV, listed its mission as to “build the political clout and engage-ment of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country.” In sum, they want youth to vote. Several celebrities, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Macy Gray, Jake Gyllenhaal, Samuel L.

Jackson, Madonna, Ricky Martin, Justin Timberlake, The Ramones, Christina Aguilera, and Jellyfish, have sponsored rock the Vote.

In 2004 Rock the Vote hosted “America Rocks the Vote,” an open forum with the Presidential Candidates moderated by Ander-son Cooper. This unproductive semi-debate “left the usual topics of war in Iraq and the economy mostly to the side…For example, the candidates were asked if they had ever used marijuana,” according to

Page 23


issue 3-

CNN. The forum quickly erupted into a viewer-fun, but unproduc-tive verbal brawl between Gov. Howard Dean and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Rock the Vote’s most successful campaign is called “Censor-ship is Un-American,” in which they fabricate the idea that there exists “the war over cultural values.” They would have us believe that every-one must vote now because the government “is just plain threatening to our 1st Amendment rights.” Rock the Vote tries to get uninformed voters to the polls by making outrageous statements such as: “Politi-cians who aren’t busy denouncing sex in the media, are busy oppos-ing marriage for same-sex couples, even promising to write this big-otry into the U.S. Constitution. We are watching as our government attempts to write discrimination into our Nation’s most sacred laws.”

The only effect of Rock the Vote is an increase in the number of registered youth voters. They achieve this by proposing forms of con-spiracy theory. Yet, the most important facet of the voting process is

missing: education. Rock the Vote motivates unfit voters without en-couraging them to get information and educate themselves on the issues.

Citizen Change, a political service group founded by P. Diddy, has motives almost identical those of Rock the Vote. In 2004 Citizen Change created the very popular “Vote or Die” campaign. The goal was again to promote youth registration and voting, “empowering millions of young Americans to access their power and vote.” Vote or Die had the support of 50 cent, Ludicrous, Paris Hilton, and others. Ironically, neither Hilton nor Ludicrous even registered to vote, while 50 cent was not allowed to because of his status as a convicted felon.

Unfortunately, neither of the two highly publicized “get-out-the-vote” campaigns promotes political education. Their only func-tion is raising the percentage-voting statistic by filling the polls with uninformed and unfit voters. As P. Diddy put it, “Something like this happens – 4 million or so votes, like bam!” Political scientist James Glaser, a professor at Tufts University, said in response to this trend, “College students are the worst voters that are out there.” These cam-

paigns are not beneficial to the American electoral system. Since they flood polls with uninformed votes, Rock the Vote and Citi-zen Change can be characterized as two unpatriotic organizations that are severely injuring the effectiveness of our electoral system.

Along similar lines, many who are dissatisfied with low voting percentages in America have proposed a voting alternative in order to make voting significantly easier. To this end, they have suggested allowing people to vote online from home. In 2000, the Pentagon created The Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment hoping that all voting could soon be converted to digital. The program could potentially accommodate the entire nation in the near future.

This voting alternative encourages unfit voters. America should not allow these indolent people to swing elections. Over-all, online voting is unnecessary. Voting is already a very simple process and polls are easily accessible. Online voting would have the same adverse effects as Rock the Vote, making voting acces-sible to those not willing to put in the minimal effort required to vote. The Rationally Ignorant, who would normally not see a large benefit in voting, would vote just because it is easy instead of be-cause they understand the politics of the election. Because of the foreseeable loss of electoral integrity, as well as a flood of unin-formed ballots, online voting should never be instituted in America.

In fact, low voting percentages only reflect well on the American Government. In 1964, amidst the emerging civil rights movement, 61.92% of the population in America voted in the Presidential election. However, in 2000, only 49.3% of the popula-tion voted. When people are content with their government, they do not feel obligated to vote. On the other hand, when they are unhappy with the status quo, they are more compelled to vote. It is for these reasons that in 1964, when the governmental approval rate was at record breaking lows, more people voted than in 2000, when people were more content and voting was easier than ever.

Organizations such as Rock the Vote and alternative vot-ing methods are being developed because people do not un-derstand that a low voting-percentage is not bad. Indeed, it in-dicates governmental success. Because low voting-percentages may indicate electoral contentment, Rock the Vote, Vote or Die, and online voting could be viewed as unpatriotic prac-tices, not beneficial to America and filling polls with hollow un-informed ballots. This is a huge misconception in our society.

Creating more educational campaigns would also coun-ter the adverse effects of Rock the Vote. For every such organiza-tion, there should be a counter-balancing group whose sole goal is to spread education about Presidential Candidates. If political education were made easier to access, most of the votes gener-ated from stimulation campaigns would be converted to informed ones rather than unfit ones. Additionally, there would no lon-ger be a need for vote stimulation. People would have easier ac-cess to education, and as per the theory of Rational Ignorance, the pros of fit voting would outweigh the cons of education.

America does not need to fill its polling places with unin-formed, unfit voters. It is actually positive for the country to have an electorate that is content with the status quo. In the case of ignorance or indifference it would be patriotic and rational to not vote. Those or-ganizations that encourage unfit voters without simultaneously pro-moting education, oblivious to the underlying effects of their actions, are injuring the electoral system in America and are truly unpatriotic.

Page 24

PatRiotisM


A free press is one of the first rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and played a critical role in the founding of America. The press helped incite resistance to Britain by publishing the pamphlets that sowed the seeds of nationalism

and patriotism in the colonies. In recent years, however, there has been pressure for the media to become more “patriotic” and not run stories overtly critical of the Bush Administration’s War on Terror. Fox News and right–wing talk radio feature the most nota-ble examples of overt patriotism, which is shown through flag la-pel pins worn by journalists, pictures of the American bald eagle, and backdrops of the flag during the television broadcasts. Sean Hannity gives his “State of America” segment of Hannity’s Amer-ica in front of no fewer that ten American flags, while Lou Dobbs has a framed picture of the eagle in his studio. The media must resist the temptation to attract viewers through appealing to their nationalism and aspire to present the news in an unbiased way.

After 9/11, the administration established a policy of se-crecy and asked the media and Americans to “watch what they say.” The main way to smear papers and TV stations was to say they were unpatriotic or that they were compromising national security. The Administration also used its style of go it alone, the “you’re either with us or against us” mentality, to attack those who disagreed with the president. Dana Milbank of the Washing-ton Post lost his access to top-level and stopped receiving travel schedules of government officials. Similarly, Thomas Ricks, also of the Post, said that secrecy has so infected the administration that “[Donald] Rumsfeld has explicitly said to me he would like to send some of the people who leak to me to jail.” Journalists, such as Bob Woodward, who write fawning articles and books about the president are given access to any document and treat-ed as royalty unless they begin to criticize the administration.

There have been shrill accusations of left wing bias in the media by conservative pundits. Conservatives have pointed to a vast left-wing conspiracy to use the media to promote their insidious doctrine and their popularity at universities to in-doctrinate the next generation, to turn them into “tax-hiking,

government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, Hollywood-loving…” liberals, according to one ad in the 2004 presidential campaign by the Club for Growth, a fiercely anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist. Norquist once stated, “ I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce its size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” Since conservatives also believe that liberals are peaceniks and have no stomach for a fight, they shrilly accuse journalists of being unpatriotic for either having the temerity to criticize the president in a “time of war,” report-ing news on the war in Iraq that is too negative, or trying to investigate the inner workings of the administration’s policies.

According to a Pew Research Forum report released in June 2005, the public’s view of patriotism in the media hit a

Profiting Off

PatriotismHow the Media Sacrifices its Integrity for Ratings

Lou Dobbs (above) on his CNN show, Lou Dobbs Tonight, pro-motes patriotism by framing a picture of an eagle in his studio and criticizing “anti-American” journalists and politicians.

For example, he slammed Katie Couric for questioning the use of the word “we” to refer to all Americans, and he denounced Obama’s decision to stop wearing a flag lapel pin. Conserva-

tive blogs published a photo of the presidential candidates including Obama (below), who appears to be abstaining from

putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Alle-giance. However, the photo was taken during a recitation of the

National Anthem, not the Pledge as misreported.

By Henry Hoglund

Forthecause.US

ABC News

Page 25


issue 3-

high point in 2001, coinciding with 9/11, and then dropped back to pre 9/11 tallies, with 40 percent of respondents say-ing that the press was “too critical of America.” Of those forty percent, 67 percent are Republican. In the same report, 67 percent of Republicans also said that “press criticism of the military weakens the country’s defense” compared to just 36 percent of Democrats. In order not to lose revenues from more patriotic viewers, the mainstream media has been forced to run more pro-American coverage of the issues and has gen-erally complied with the Bush administration’s request that coffins not be shown for public consumption. Some journal-ists, however, are less than thrilled with the use of the label “unpatriotic” and all it connotes as an intimidation technique.

To counter the accusations of left-wing bias in the media and therefore anti-Americanism, in his book Lies And the Ly-ing Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken creates a “Hypothetical Liberal Media Paradigm Matrix,” which states that if liberals were prevalent in the media, a Democratic candidate would be helped by media coverage while a Republican candidate would be hurt. However, according to a Pew Research Forum report, the tone of coverage for Bush was more positive than for Gore in 2000. The necessity of catering to all, however, is causing the media to investigate less into the way the coun-try is run and to generally keep the news tinted towards ac-quiescence in regard to many of the Administration’s policies.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Internet, and National Public Radio are leading the backlash against the relative tepidness of the mainstream media in investigating the secretiveness of the administration. Due to the need to stay fi-nancially afloat, the mainstream media is being weighted down with the need to accommodate all viewers, which leads to bland reporting and a lack of investigative journalism. Without an in-dependent press, there is no way for our citizens to be informed enough to participate in our democracy. It would be beneficial for a president to begin another round of “trust-busting” to break up the large news conglomerates and allow them to cater to individual needs, so that investigative and pertinent journal-ism can reenter the media to enlighten the citizenry on how we are being governed. Also, more funding should be given to public media, as it is already the voice in the wilderness against many of the shady policies of the administration. The indepen-dence of many of the public radio journalists allows them to give the public the facts it needs to ensure a healthy democracy. Finally, there should be no regulation by the federal govern-ment on the Internet or media content. The Internet is a major vehicle for independent journalism for all bands of the politi-cal spectrum, a departure from the mainstream media which would rather sound patriotic than report the news accurately.

“So I put on the [lapel pin] flag as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the wiling. I put it on to remind myself that the flag belongs to the country, not to the government; that one is not un-American to see the war-except in self-defense-as a failure of moral imagination, politi-cal nerve, and diplomacy.”

-Bill Moyers, host of Bill Moyers Journal, in his book

Moyers on America (2004)

Fox News

In recent years conservative authors such as Ann Coulter and Dinesh D’Souza have been immensely popular with books that

promote patriotism and crucify politicians who the authors see as unpatriotic. Sean Hannity, on his show “Hannity’s America,”

judges public figures passed on their level of patriotism and uses patriotic images and symbols to appeal to viewers.

Page 26

PatRiotisM


Celebrity endorsements, though often contro-versial, increase interest and voter turnout from otherwise uninterested citizens. It is appropri-ate that celebrities voice their opinions in politi-cal campaigns. In previous elections, celebrities

had a minimal impact on political campaigns. Setting a precedent, however, Oprah Winfrey, one of the most influential women in the world according to CNN and Time Magazine, announced her support for Democratic candidate Barack Obama early in the race. Were her efforts responsible in part for Obama’s stunning Iowa caucus results?

Freedom of speech, a hallmark of American democracy, is a principle that should be applied to the full spectrum of our so-ciety, including celebrities. The campaign to nominate a presiden-tial candidate evokes serious consideration from voters, so they will listen, read, and think carefully before committing to a candi-date. Oprah’s sphere of influence through her television show, her O magazine, as well as theater and film productions reaches a tre-mendous audience of all age groups and ethnicities. She brings a greater awareness to the presidential race through people’s instant recognition of her persona and respect for her opinion. Through this awareness, there is hope for a stronger sense of patriotism and involvement in our country through the privilege of voting.

Oprah has had a generally positive influence on society, rais-ing consciousness in many aspects of life including literature, health, and now politics. When Oprah endorses a product, whether it is a CD, a novel, a beauty product or a person, her influence is far reaching. For example, after Josh Groban appeared on her show, his CD catapulted to number one on the Billboard charts, and be-came the best selling album of 2007. She is motivating, because throughout her life, she has made a continuous effort to make a difference in the world. Oprah is not forcing her opinions on the public, but she wants to create a greater awareness of the new op-portunities that can evolve from Obama’s leadership. Oprah’s au-thenticity and genuine desire to create a stronger America, through

the support of a candidate, should be admired, and as a result of her celebrity, more people will be interested in the political race.

Oprah’s decision to support Obama, moreover, is equitable because her initiative to support him was developed from aspects of his beliefs that she feels will create a better America. One could argue that the use of alternative resources, such as concerts, as a means for candidates to campaign is inappropriate, and that vot-ers would not be voting for the actual candidate but for the celeb-rity. In Oprah’s case, she backed Obama because she agrees with his ethics and his policies. It is more than likely that Oprah’s fans will support her candidate. In the end the voter will not be vot-ing for Oprah, but for the opinions and morals Obama reflects in his campaign. She has expressed multiple times that she dislikes the superficiality of most politicians, and she discovered a dis-tinct difference in Obama that inspired her to be his advocate.

Celebrities can be manipulated in various ways to acceler-ate the popularity of and interest in a particular candidate. The advocacy of Oprah in the Obama campaign will potentially bring him more votes from women, because women form the major-ity of Oprah’s fan base. Hillary Clinton worked diligently to gain the support of the Reverend Al Sharpton, because his appear-ance in her campaign could garner more African-American votes.

Celebrities have the right to voice their opinions. Oprah is motivated to elevate people’s awareness in an effort to create a better society, and she feels that this process can begin under the leader-ship of Obama. Sixty-nine percent of Americans said that Winfrey’s support of a presidential candidate would not influence their vote. However, is there a doubt in anybody’s mind that the “Oprah fac-tor” didn’t play a part in the results in Iowa? We have already wit-nessed the historic outcome in the Iowa caucus with Obama’s victory. Yet, the final analysis is in how many people cast their vote for Obama as a result of her celebrity. No matter what the ul-timate outcome of the nomination, Oprah Winfrey has raised the consciousness of voters to support the candidate of their choice.

THEFACTOR

By Andrew Demas

WLNY TV

Page 27


issue 3-

The Nazi party, Adolf Hitler, and the Third Reich rose from the ashes of the First World War, em-bracing nationalism as a way to bring Germany back to its past greatness. Hitler used this nation-alism as a justification for conquering Austria and

Czechoslovakia, resulting eventually in the World War II. Similarly, after the events of 9/11, President George W. Bush used nationalism as a way to justify the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hitler attempted to create an empire and reorganize Europe, while Bush hopes to reorganize the Middle East. The fact that such different nations, one a model of totalitariansim, and the other a model of de-mocracy, can each use the philosophy of nationalism to achieve their goals shows how nations can be led into making flawed decisions.

The Nazi party came to power by capitalizing on the depression and weak government in post-war Germany that had been caused by the Allies who had forced the Germans to pay all of their war debt accumulated during World War I and give up a sizeable piece of their territory. This attempt at crippling Germany caused many of the middle class and working class to lose their life savings. The feeling of hopelessness and poverty in Germany at this time was seemingly remedied by Hitler. He proposed that all of the Volk (people) of the German nation had a right to protection and a meaningful life given to them by the German government, and also that all the Volk had a right to protect the German “Vaterland” (fatherland); or as he defined it “overcoming bourgeois privatism, unconditionally equating the in-dividual fate and the fate of the nation.” Hitler’s nationalism gave hope to the common man and was a way to restore Germany’s greatness.

After Hitler used his message of nationalism to take over Ger-many, he tweaked the message to “Deutschland uber alles” (Germa-ny over all). Hitler had used the idea of nationalism, something that brought him power, and to justify starting World War II. When he announced that he was to attack Austria, he called it a unification of the greater German people. He used the message of “Germany over all” as a justification for attacking other countries, as nationalistic Germans rationalized that since Germans were better, they had the right to attack other countries and incorporate them into the German state. He also used his original message of nationalism, that the Volk had a duty to fight for their country, as one to justify making soldiers fight in World War II. Such was the success of his nationalism argu-ment that Hitler was even able to convince Germans who did not agree with the message of Nazism to fight for their “Vaterland”. One of the most famous examples was Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, an aristocratic and vastly experienced old general who came out of retirement and rejoined the army as a field marshal, because he want-ed to protect the “Vaterland.” Although he hated Hitler and Nazism, and famously once identified Hitler as that “Bohemian corporal,” he still was willing to lead the armies of Germany in a war. Hitler was able to manipulate Rundstedt’s and other Germans’ strong sense of

patriotism, by twisting nationalism so that it seemed like patriotism.Like Hitler, Bush used a traumatizing event in the history of

his country, in this case the terrorist attacks of 9/11, as a way of mak-ing the issue of nationalism an important part of the agenda. Bush thus demonstrated the ease with which powerful political figures can manipulate nationalism to justify any cause. In a speech ten days after the events of 9/11, Bush stated, “on September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.” Bush argued that terrorists who committed an act of war on our country were mo-tivated by hatred and opposition to our country’s patriotic ideals of liberty, democracy and individualism. Bush relied on our patriotic ideals to stir up nationalism, which gained him the country’s approv-al to jump into conflicts in the Middle East. He was able to use this message to justify attacking and occupying Afghanistan, arguing that the terrorists were enemies of freedom, and then slightly tweaked the message so that he was able to justify invading Iraq. Shortly before initiating the Iraq War, he gave a speech in which he stated, “in Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions.” Bush there-by justified the war in Iraq by saying that we were going to force-fully bring our form of patriotism, distorted into nationalism, to Iraq.

The use of some form of Bush’s nationalism argument is one that has helped to prolong the war in Iraq. German nationalism was one of the excuses used by Hitler to defend the creation of Nazi institutions such as the Gestapo, which were used to end political opposition in Germany. While on a significantly less extreme level, the nationalism argument in the U.S. was used by the Bush adminis-tration to discredit their political opponents, such as Representative Tom Delay and Vice-President Dick Cheney, who both accused John Kerry of lacking patriotism in 2003 during his presidential campaign.

Patriotic ideals have defined the history of the U.S., begin-ning with the Declaration of Independence. Our pride in our val-ues of liberty, democracy and individualism has on occasion led to our conviction that we are “better” than other countries that lack these freedoms. The belief that we are bringing liberty, free-dom and democracy to other nations is one that is used for the recruiting of our soldiers. As was the case with some German of-ficers and soldiers during the World War II, such as von Rund-stedt, some American soldiers have continued to serve in the armed forces despite grave misgivings about whether our coun-try should have entered into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is easy for a manipulative and wily national leader to inter-change patriotism and nationalism, to justify conflict and turmoil. Unfortunately, because of the historical prevalence of nationalism and the effectiveness of arguments against opponents of nationalism, there is no foolproof solution to the use of nationalism arguments.

Blindfolded PatriotismBy James Yaro

Page 28

PatRiotisM


In 2006, Brian DePalma, the acclaimed director of Amer-ican classics such as Scarface, The Untouchables, and Mission: Impossible, decided to make his next picture a bold artistic statement on the war in Iraq. Although its release, as well as its budget, was very limited, Redacted

managed to stir up substantial controversy, with conservative media icons such as Bill O’Reilly condemning it as anti-American propa-ganda. Although Redacted does criticize the United States’ presence in Iraq, its true message is anti-war, not anti-American. Redacted exemplifies the freedom of speech that differentiates America from many other countries in the world. This film should be regarded as a valid anti-war opinion, not falsely labeled as anti-American.

Even before Redacted was released in theaters, right-wing fig-ures were condemning the film’s negative view of the war. Assert-ing that it is overly critical of the soldiers, as well as our nation’s ide-ology, muckrakers such as Bill O’Reilly called for a boycott of the film. DePalma was having the ultimate director’s nightmare: not

only was a boycott of his film declared, but he also faced problems with his producers. His own film was “redacted” when pictures of dead soldiers were removed. Although at the New York Film Fes-tival press conference DePalma made it seem as though a censor had unjustly ripped his film apart, Mark Cuban, the president of Magnolia Pictures, which produced and distributed the film, later explained that the pictures had to be taken out for legal reasons. He explained that family members of the soldiers would likely take instant legal action if the pictures of the soldiers were included. In fact, Cuban was so loyal to DePalma’s vision that when he saw how distraught the director became when Redacted was edited, he of-fered to sell back the rights to the film. DePalma turned down the offer, since he would not be able to distribute it without Magnolia.

After the film’s debut at the Venice Film Festival, radical conservatives became further aggravated. One of the main mo-tivations for the boycotts was the fear that the film, if viewed by those in the Middle East, would deepen their hatred of America.

RedactingRedacted

By Joseph pomp

IMDBIMDB

Images from Brian De Palma’s anti-war movie, Redacted.

The story of how a movie about silenced opinions of the Iraq War was silenced itself.

Page 29


issue 3-

This notion has been perpetuated by right-wing media such as Fox News, but in truth has little merit. Redacted was barely dis-tributed in the U.S. and is certainly not playing in any Baghdad cinemas. In fact, American movies criticizing American policy have been shown to help America’s foreign image. Iranian view-ers of Michael Moore’s Sicko, said that, although the film was critical of America, they were very impressed by the extent of free speech in America, as a moviemaker who made such a film in Iran would be imprisoned. The boycotters are so steadfast in their misguided belief that supporting the troops is equivalent to supporting the administration’s policy that they fail to con-sider the harm they are inflicting on the institution of free speech.

Redacted deals with the Haditha Scandal, in which U.S. troops raped an Iraqi girl and murdered her family. Clearly, the troops involved committed unjustifiable crimes. It is ridiculous that right-wing radicals are protesting the criticism of this specific group of soldiers. Even though they are U.S. troops, they have com-mitted rape and murder and have distorted the purpose of the war. Indeed, De Palma anticipated this impulsive reaction. In an inter-view he stated, “I’ve done something that…just can’t be done. You can’t ever say anything critical about the troops.” Our inability as Americans to grow past ‘patriotic’ dogma, i.e. the duty to “support our troops” regardless of their actions, is a calamity. People who view themselves as patriots are supporting and promoting a boy-cott of all anti-war sentiment and limiting the important role free speech plays in America. Thus, the boycotters of Redacted are the ones truly expressing anti-American sentiment, as they are seek-ing to block the core American value of freedom of expression.

Boycotters of Redacted claim to be concerned with the way our nation is perceived by others. They express wor-ry that foreigners will think poorly of us in seeing that one of our filmmakers thinks so poorly of his homeland. However,

if anyone, the boycotters themselves are hurting our national image. The U.S. prides itself on the freedom of speech and ex-pression. Indeed, the world respects us greatly for these val-ues. Even if celebrating our nation’s great artists may at times be difficult, it is certainly more beneficial to us than censorship.

Another tactic employed in the boycott of Redacted is the lan-guage used to express political concerns in the media. The website www.boycottredacted.com, set up by right-wing demagogues, er-roneously dismisses the film as propaganda. “Propaganda” has the connotation of deliberately misleading the public and delegitimiz-ing other opinions. While Redacted does express a radical opinion, it is not misleading or suppressive of other opinions. It facilitates debate instead of limiting debate. In fact, it is actually this website itself that is the true propaganda. The website misleads people as to the nature of the film and seeks to eliminate diversity of opinion by discouraging people from learning about the film’s actual content.

Redacted is by no means a misleading film. It sheds light on an opinion created from the murder of an entire Iraqi family. Al-though inspired by true events, it makes its fabrications, as all mov-ies do: it never claims to be completely accurate. If the film was made to promote any cause, it was to reveal how life in wartime is so trying; men who were otherwise good can become evil. In that sense, the film is actually in support of soldiers, because it is sympathetic towards the young men who have been ruined by war. Yet, it is an anti-war film, reminding us of the violence and hor-rors of war. If these boycotters were truly patriotic Americans, they would recognize that Redacted asks questions Americans should be asking themselves: is the war in Iraq justified? What are we ac-complishing there? DePalma is not anti-American. He is in fact doing more for our country than any of his critics. He has contrib-uted his voice to the forum of democracy: it is our patriotic duty to be tolerant and appreciative of the rights we have as Americans.

Brian DePalma, director of American classics such as Scarface and Mission: Impossible, on the set of Redacted.DePalma came under fire for express-ing his viewpoints on the Iraq War.

IMDB

PatRiotisM

Page 30


By Hill Wyrough

This Article Was Written in the USA

Every so often you hear a cheer to “Buy American!” Even at the end of the Republican Debate hosted by YouTube/CNN in September and in the spirit of the holiday season, some of the candidates signed off with telling the American people to “Buy Amer-

ican this holiday season.” On the surface this idea certainly sounds patriotic. Going out and buying a Ford or a Chevy, instead of a Toy-ota; buying something other than Mattel, sounds pretty good to me. But in reality, only a small contingent of people lives by this. Most people are content with buying what is best for themselves. Many believe that it is patriotic to buy products stamped with “Made in U.S.A” as opposed to “Made in Taiwan” or “Made in China” or “Made in any other country that we import goods from.” The list goes on.

In one sense, buying American inhibits foreign competition and gives American industry a little edge. There is no doubt that buying American-made products will more or less stimulate the domestic economy and keep money circulating within the U.S. Al-ternatively, it is wrong and un-American to force citizens to forfeit their choice of what they want to buy. And ultimately, what we, as Americans, want is choices, and freedom to make those choices.

The switch from American-made products to foreign im-ports can be viewed through the struggle between American-made cars and foreign-made cars. From the mid-20th century until now, foreign imported cars are becoming more and more numer-

ous, allowing Americans to buy according to their preferences. Does this mean that if you wanted an Audi or a Volkswagen, you were hurting America? There were plenty of other options for Americans, but a free market means choice with your purchase.

Pretend you are an American citizen who needs a new car in the mid-1990’s. You have no preferences or particular dislikes or likes. You are informed about either a GM sedan or a Toyota sedan. GM boasts slogans saying “What’s good for GM is good for Amer-ica,” and plays up its American roots. Most people are familiar with GM’s ad campaign: John Mellencamp’s “Our Country” playing along with a montage of Chevy trucks doing heavy-duty work. To be total-

ly honest, Toyota and most foreign competitors had GM and most other American-made cars beat in terms of quality and reliability in the past decade or so until pretty recently. But therein lies the patri-otic dilemma. Do you buy a lesser quality product from America just

because it’s American, and you are supporting American by shun-ning the foreign competitors and promoting domestic industry? Or do you exploit the opportunity of a quality product for generally the same price even though it isn’t American? But to sacrifice a little bang for your buck, help out America, bring down the foreign com-petitors, and promote America at all costs seem like good ideas too.

Most domestic industries lobby endlessly for more protec-tion, which would come in the form of tariffs, quotas, and other re-strictions to inhibit imports. But this protection has its cost. If we impose these restrictions, we are pushing Americans to buy only from only Americans, and the reverse of that is, Americans only selling to Americans. This would push our country to be more and more economically introverted and closed. So the phrase “Buy American” has some implications that could have crippling effects on our economy, so the person who screams “Buy American” has more or less endorsed these seemingly non-patriotic implications.

The Pros and Cons of Buying American

There were plenty of other options for Americans, but a free market means choice

with your purchase

AndrewPope.com

Page 31


issue 3-

Iranians are famous, or arguably infamous, for their nationalism, being uncompromisingly loy-al and devoted to maintaining their ancient heritage, language and country and adamantly refusing to allow assimilation of other cultures to com-

promise their unique national identity. Iran’s tumultuous history is much to blame for what has shaped

Iranian nationalism in the twenty first century. The war-driven Dar-ius the Great, King of Persia from 522 BC to 485 BC, introduced the idea of “Persian” or “Aryan pride.” Darius’ refusal to accept clas-sical Greek antiquity as a time of European achievement and his constantly seeking ways to wage war upon the cultural European powers instilled in Persians (early Iranians) a sense of superiority.

Ancient Iranian poetry also holds significant influence over the birth and existing pillars of Iranian national dignity. The Persian poet Ferdowsi, spent 35 years of his life writing his epic “Shahnameh” (“The Epic of Kings”), originally meant to be presented to the Samanid princes of Khorasan, who were leading a revival of Iranian culture and tradition following the seventh century Arab conquest. The work, written to save Per-sian culture from Arab influence is single handedly the most beloved and popular national Iranian epics.

A major western misconception squeez-es Iranian nationalism in a niche with Islam. Iranian citizens have valued inherently secu-lar Iranian pride since around the 11th centu-ry. As one follows the works of great Persian poets, writers, and artists chronologically, an interesting move away from religious depen-dency and towards secularism reveals itself. Ancient poet, philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician Omar Khayyam and Hafez, revered Persian mystic and poet, questioned conventional Islamic customs and rather focused on the Persians’ love of art, sci-ence, writing and culture to instill pride and dignity in their readers.

Under the leadership of Reza Shah and the Pahl-avi dynasty in 1921,

Iran met an authoritarian government that valued nationalism, sec-ularism, anti-communism, and militarism, joined with strict cen-sorship and state propaganda. While maintaining the underlying cultural and historical foundation of the country, Iran began look-ing and feeling like a pseudo-modern, western country. Iranian na-tionalism evolved with the era and moved in an even more secular direction. The Iranian Cleric class hardly approved of the new Pahl-avi movement and openly opposed his reign from start to finish.

After son of Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s over-throw by the Iranian people in 1979, the Muslim clerics of Iran came to power. Some attribute this rise to power to the Pahlavi family’s disregard of Persian heritage and historical culture. The revolution spelled out for the world that most Iranians, while they definitely basked in the modernization that the country saw during the reign of the Pahlavi’s, were more interested in maintaining their national pride, their language, and their his-tory than they were with fitting into the economic high-circle of the modern international community. The Islamic cler-ics appealed to the Iranian masses, as they were a blast from the past, promoting ancient readings of the Koran and Per-sian scriptures, etc. The revolution was their only backlash.

Many of today’s Iranians, in and outside of Iran, regret the country’s push against the late Shah and the loss of leaders who promoted assimilation and secularism rather than cultural exclusion and religious extremism. Over 50% of Iranian ci-vilians are reportedly against the current re-gime in power. Their secular nationalism still rings strong today, even in the oppressive en-vironment of contemporary, Muslim Iran.

One may be surprised to find masses of literature deemed “illegal” by today’s Iranian

government in the homes of average civil-ians. Even if it means a fine, 30 lashes, or

even life in jail, Iranians will never allow their national pride and

belief that they are one of the most important civiliza-

tions known to man to be compromised.

Persians:A Proud People Repressed

By Kimya Zahedi

The Azadi Tower in Tehran, formerly a symbol of a proud people, is now a symbol of a radical Islamist Iran.

Page 32

PatRiotisM


As the European Union extends its reach into the former Soviet republics of Eastern Europe, Europeans continue to disagree over the EU’s policies and principles. While the EU has taken significant strides since its inception in 1992, na-

tionalism continues to be prevalent within many individual states. There are two main attitudes towards the EU’s assimilation

plans: Euroscepticism or opposition towards a unified Europe, and Pan-Europeanism or the belief that there should be a greater European entity among nations. Euroscepticism is often associ-ated with the protection of national interests from the influence of the EU. Moreover, Euroscepticism tends to be more widespread in countries that have not been plagued by internal revolutions or dictatorships for hundreds of years. Eurosceptics are more likely to prioritize national sovereignty and responsibility over Euro-pean unity and cohesiveness, as they believe their countries can govern themselves culturally, economically, and politically without foreign influence. They feel that the EU reduces the nation’s pow-er, disrupts prior stability, and ruins national identity and pride.

As long as Europeans continue to identify themselves as citizens of an individual state rather than as part of a su-pranational federation Europe will never be wholly unified, even if an EU constitution is ratified or some sort of execu-tive branch is established. Cultural and national differences will always divide the continent into different sects, no mat-ter how much EU leaders claim that a unified Europe exists.

The EU’s origins can be traced back to the early 20th century, when two world wars ravaged the continent. Follow-ing World War II, many Europeans believed that an economic

and political union of European nations should be formed in or-der to maintain peace and prevent the extreme nationalism that caused so much conflict in the region. In the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a staunch advocate of a uni-fied Europe, “We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of the newly united Germany to play a dominating part in the world…we must build a kind of United States of Europe…and provide it with a struc-ture under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.”

In 1957, France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy formed the European Economic Community (EEC). A common market, one without any internal tariffs, would be imple-mented between the participating countries. This agreement made it virtually impossible for involved states to declare war on each other, as all resources would be pooled. Therefore, extreme nation-alism became less common in these areas as economic competi-tion decreased and the likelihood for military conflict diminished.

Over the next few decades, membership in the EEC grew to 12 member states. The EEC, later named the European Com-munity, was essentially transformed into the EU after the sign-ing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. This treaty established the legal infrastructure for the new federation. Now, not only was the union able to decide on economic issues, but also on judicial, for-eign, and political affairs. Many Eurosceptics saw this extension of power as an intrusion on national influence and sovereignty.

One of the major provisions of the Maastricht Treaty was the idea of a widespread, European currency: the euro. The euro was established in order to create a monetary union throughout Europe, which would serve two purposes. One function would be

By Brenton Arnaboldi

EUropeaness: How Nationalism and Eurosceptism are Threatening the European Union

www.superpanoramas.com

Page 33


issue 3-

to facilitate international trade and eliminate exchange rates be-tween EU states. The other purpose would be more symbolic, as the new currency would bring about a sense of European identity.

The euro was finally put into circulation in 1999, and today thirteen member states consider the Euro their official currency. However, the EU nations of the UK, Denmark, and Sweden re-jected the euro and retained their old currencies, fearing that the new currency would infringe on their national sovereignty.

While the Maastricht Treaty requires EU states to eventually adopt the euro, Denmark and the UK negotiated opt-outs from the

new currency. Nevertheless, Denmark held a national referendum in 2000 to decide whether to adopt the euro. Fifty-three percent of the population voted against the euro, despite the attempts of the Dan-ish government, leading businessmen, and media to convince the populace that the euro would bring economic stability. Pia Kjaers-gaard, the ex-leader of the nationalist Danish People’s Party that op-posed the new currency, stated “the euro would erode our national authority and identity at a time when Denmark is already becom-ing more and more multiethnic and globalized.” As citizens of a rich and prosperous nation that had been free of economic and social unrest, the Danish people generally felt that further EU integration would only ruin previous success. In 2003, Sweden, which entered the EU after the Maastricht Treaty, also rejected the euro through a national referendum for reasons similar to those of Denmark.

In the UK, the general majority of the population was so opposed to the euro that no national referendum was held, dis-appointing former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who promoted the euro. The British parliament was torn by the issue, as Conservatives fought vehemently to keep the old currency and the Labour Party sought to replace the pound with the euro. Conservative leaders, along with most of the populace, believed that the inception of the euro would not only harm the thriving British economy but also would encroach on their national autonomy. The general reason for this widespread Euroscepticism is that the UK historically is an ex-tremely powerful nation, one that used to boast a vast overseas em-pire. Because of their country’s history, the British people tend to be extremely proud of their national identity and uniqueness. Further-more, Britain is an island nation and not a part of continental Eu-rope, and thus Britons feel less related to countries on the mainland.

Euroscepticism has not only emerged in response to the euro. In 2005, France and the Netherlands rejected the Euro-pean constitution through national referendums. The EU con-stitution essentially defined the powers of the EU, increasing the federation’s influence in numerous areas, including in for-eign, defense, immigration, and justice policies. French and Dutch hostility to the treaty can be attributed to many factors. Both governments at the time were hugely unpopular, and both countries were struggling with stagnant economies. Many Eu-

ropeans blamed the widespread economic decline on the fact that the EU had not spent enough time on economic reform.

In addition, many in opposition were concerned about the consequences of EU expansion into the periphery of Europe. Be-cause of the Schengen Agreement, which eliminates border con-trols between participating EU states, Eastern Europeans can more easily immigrate to the wealthier Western European countries. These migrants are willing to provide cheap labor, thus making it harder for natives to earn those jobs, resulting in increased unem-ployment. French and Dutch alike were also concerned about the vastness and enlargement policies of the EU. As two of the initial countries to support a European Union, the French and Dutch people felt that the EU no longer represented their national identi-ties; instead, the EU was viewed more as a global organization, en-compassing numerous different cultures. People from both coun-tries are especially hostile towards Turkey’s application, as it is a Muslim state and has most of its landmass on the Asian continent.

Ironically, whereas French “no” voters believed that France was losing influence in EU affairs, the Dutch “no” voters were concerned that the bigger member states, particularly France and Germany, would gain even more power under the constitution. Because of the French and Dutch rejections, several other EU countries cancelled their referendums. In response to the antago-nism towards the constitution, the EU strived to compose a more appealing constitution. Just recently, on December 13th 2007, EU leaders signed a new charter, the Treaty of Lisbon, which acts as a replacement to the EU constitution. The treaty has yet to be rati-fied through a referendum in any country, but Britain, the Neth-erlands, and Denmark are expected to show the most opposition.

While the EU has eliminated extreme nationalism in mem-ber states, Europe will never truly be united culturally and socially.

While the EU’s progress has been extraordinary, certain nationalist vestiges will never be eradicated. For example, something like the ba-guette will always be seen as French, not European. Language is also a significant barrier, as the EU includes 23 official languages. Further-more, every EU country has its own unique history and background.

In addition, sport is a major nationalist element that still remains. A soccer tournament known as the Euro Cham-pionships takes place every four years. The competition in-cludes sixteen national teams. Events such as these will al-ways evoke a sense of nationalism, as different countries battle for European supremacy (at the soccer and symbolic level).

While Europe has accomplished its initial goal of preventing future warfare in the region, the EU will never change the widespread view taken by most of its citizens: that the concerns of the individu-al nation are more important than those of the regional super-state. The people of the EU member states will not let the supranational institution infringe upon their national sovereignty and identity.

The euro was established in order to create a monetary union throughout Europe...The new currency would bring about a sense of

European identity.

While the EU’s progress has been extraordinary, certain nationalist vestiges will never be eradicated...Sport is a major

nationalist element that still remains.

Page 34

PatRiotisM


In the heart of Greece in 1801, in a region then a part of the Ottoman Empire, a British Lord struck a deal that would cause a massive debate over 200 years later.

The Elgin Marbles are a series of statues that once decorated the Parthenon. Beginning in 1801, the Lord of

Elgin, Thomas Bruce, moved the statues out of the Parthenon to Eng-land. Parliament then proceeded to officially purchase the Elgin Marbles in 1816, after they had been removed. At the time the Ottoman Empire had no use for the marbles, so they were glad to sell them off. When purchased by Britain, it was understood that they would be placed in public display and so even now, in the year 2008, they can still be seen at the British Museum. However, much debate has occurred about whether these marbles should be returned to their homeland in Athens.

About 60 years ago, restorers at the British Museum worked to clean up the statues. This was done by a group of masons using metal tools, a careless and dangerous method that could have damaged the sculptures. People all over the world were outraged, Greeks especially. In 1998, a poll conducted by Ipsos MORI, a UK advertising research center, said that 39% of British citizens would vote to return the marbles, while only 15% said they would vote to keep them in the British Museum. However, nearly 10 years later, the statues remain in the British Museum.

There are numerous reasons, however, why the statues should be kept in Britain. For one thing, the marbles would not be there to argue about if it weren’t for the Earl of Elgin. Aside from the several raids of the Parthenon by the Turks, the pollution in Greece is so terrible that they would be decomposed at this point. In fact, some statues that were left behind are barely recognizable due to the copious pollution. According to Dr. Ian Jenkins, the deputy keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, “while people moralize about bribes paid by Lord Elgin 200 years ago, and protest about cleaning that happened 60 years ago, South Metope

1 and North Metope 32, two of the finest sculptures that ever there were, still rot on the Parthenon as I speak.” In addition, despite the many complaints about the “bribing,” the British government officially paid for all the marbles legally. So it is hardly fair for Greece to simply take something which had been paid for by the British. If Britain were even willing to give the marbles back, there should be compensation.

The fight over these marble statues raises larger questions about art’s place in society. In the words of the Greek Minister of Culture Evangelos Venizelos, “The request for the restitution of the Parthenon Marbles is not made by the Greek government in the name of the Greek nation or of Greek history. It is made in the name of the cultural heritage of the world and with the voice of the mutilated monument itself, which cries out for its marbles to be re-turned.” First of all, this statement is somewhat hypocritical. In October of 2007 the Greek government moved a giant slab of the Parthenon with a crane in a dangerous attempt to install it in the new Acropolis Museum opening in 2008. Thankfully, the museum will have replicas of the original statues, which are still in London.

But beyond that, the Minister has a point. What do these mar-bles mean symbolically? Are they simply works of art or are they repre-sentations of Greek culture? And if so, what effect does that have? Art is the outlet of culture; it represents human philosophical and cultural history. However, that does not necessarily mean specific pieces must remain where they originated. After all, the point of studying history is to understand it and be influenced by it. What better place for such a re-markable work of art to be than in arguably the most famous museum in the world? Such magnificent pieces should be available to as many people as possible. The goal of art, to be seen and admired, and with free admission the British Museum provides a safe and open environ-ment for all people to see the great work of the Ancient Greek culture.

The Elgin Marbles

By Eliza Harkins

whyfiles.org

Page 35


issue 3-

On December 2, 2007, legislative elections were held in the Russian Federation. Of the 15 parties that were able to participate in the elections, 11 were included in the final ballot. Among them were the Democratic

Party of Russia, the Communist Party of Russia, the Russian So-cial Justice Party, and United Russia. After the preliminaries, only four of those parties passed the 7% threshold: United Russia which is the centrist party that backs the incumbent President, Vladimir Putin, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation led by Gennady Zyugaov and founded in 1993, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky and founded in 1989, and lastly Fair Russia, founded in 2006 and led by Sergey Mironov.

After the 64% total turnout on December 2nd, an improve-ment on the 56% achieved in 2003, United Russia won with a huge landslide, receiving 64.3% (44,714,241) of the votes, and 315 seats in the Duma. The runner-up was the Communist party with 11.57% (8,064, 886) and just 57 seats. Opposition parties such as Yabloko and the Communist party, along with certain individuals like Gary Kasparov and Vladimir Zhirinovsky, spoke about numer-ous abuses that happened before and during the election. Dmitri Peskov, however, spoke to the CNN for Kremlin and stated that the complaints were groundless. Nikolai Konkin who is the deputy head of Central Elections Commission of Russia said that the com-plaints will be “carefully examined” but never made a statement after that. However, for all the complaints, the critics of the elections all seem to agree on the fact that United Russia would have won with a large majority regardless of the circumstances of the election.

In the 2003 parliamentary election, United Russia re-ceived 37% of the party vote and in 2004, announced its support for Vladimir Putin. United Russia supports Dmitry Medvedev in the 2008 presidential election, and many members of Putin’s cabinet are members of the party. Some political observers say that the very large margin by which United Russia won is an in-dicator of the approval of the current Russia political leadership.

Yet, throughout Putin’s political career, which began after Boris Yeltsin’s resignation, accusations of abuse and corruption be-gan to surface. In a view that is supposedly held by a majority of Russians, Vladislav Gudkin, a forty-five-year-old nuclear engineer from Moscow, defended Putin’s popularity. When asked if Putin’s approval rating can really be trusted in a police state, Gudkin said that “police state or not, Putin’s rule is supported by many in Rus-sia. Some polls might have been faked, but the general consensus is that Putin is in fact a strong president.” Putin has also been ac-cused of censoring the media and silencing political activists, most

recently Alexander Litvinenko. To the landslide by which the United Russia Party won and whether any other parties had any change to win Gudkin states, “No, there was definitely no chance for any other outcome.” Gudkin further said that “Medvedev is backed by the administrative resource. He has support, money, power... nobody can go up against the administrative resource.”

Despite the polls, many Russians still live in fear of the po-litical administration. Luybov Fyodoravna, for example, was afraid of speaking about Putin or any other aspect of the Russian ad-ministration; she refused numerous requests for interviews. This feeling of fear, unfortunately, is nothing new for the residents of Russia. Media is censored with most, if not all, television stations overseen by the government. Quite a lot of them spout centrist po-litical propaganda in hopes of influencing viewers. Activism against Putin is very much discouraged by the media and military forces.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a Russian oligarch who spoke out against Putin was sentenced to ten years in prison on May 31st, 2005. His official sentence was for fraud, but most believe that he was sent to jail just because he provided financial backing for other parties. Similarly, Gary Kasparov, one of the leaders of a coalition of activists against Putin, was arrested by police a week before the elections, on November 24, 2007, for leading an anti-Putin rally in Moscow. On De-cember 12th, Kasparov took himself out of the presidential race. The reason that he gave was that he could not raise money to rent a meet-ing hall where 500 people could gather and endorse his candidacy.

How can the residents of Russia make any sort of politi-cal decision when they are exposed so heavily to propaganda? As Fyodoravna’s refusal to speak demonstrates, they cannot. The whole idea of free elections in Russia is a farce, a basic formal-ity. As Gudkin says, the administrative resource is the power that brings people to power, not the citizens of Russia. Medve-dev, the candidate supported by Putin, announced that Putin was stay in government as Prime Minister; political observers say that Medvedev will simply become the puppet of Putin’s plans.

With allegiances constantly forming and disintegrating and a political party that has absolute control over the media and the elec-tion process, many Russians have already given up on politics and discarded the whole notion as completely pointless. It seems nothing has truly changed since the Stalin and Khrushchev era of the Soviet Union. Though it may appear that the subject of politics is completely hopeless, the Russians have a history of breaking free from long years of state control. Change is not going to come, however, until intelli-gent and determined people, with the support of citizens such as both Gudkin and Fyodoravna, mobilize to restore freedom and liberty.

PUTIN’S KINGDOM

Putin Files

By Venedikt Sorkin

Page 36

PatRiotisM


In recent years, writing songs about American patrio-tism has been used as a stepping-stone to obtain suc-cess in the country music industry. Toby Keith, one of country music’s most popular artists released his most successful album to date in 2003, Shock’n Y’all.

The title is a play on shock and awe, the phrase used by the US military to describe the initial air offense against Iraq in 2003. It re-flects Keith’s strong patriotism and unbending pro-military stance, which he expresses through regular USO trips to military bases in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. Patriotic themes abound in the hit single American Soldier and in the light-hearted live track, The Taliban Song, which scornfully mocks the deposed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Shock’n Y’all is a prime example of the country music industry’s obsession with nationalism in a post 9/11 world, but the ramifications of this phenomenon are not always positive.

Country artists are using patriotism to reach Keith’s multi-platinum status, and as patriotic records gain prevalence their messages become insincere. According to Ron Shapiro, former President of Atlantic Records and current manager of multiple country artists, “when one artist strikes a nerve with the public in a big way, there is an unfortunate trend that generally follows, a seemingly endless parade of copy cats.” Country artists release patriotism-themed albums to replicate Keith’s success, but the pa-triotic messages become clichés rather than genuine sentiments.

The pressure to write patriotic records has led to a reduction in the quality and variety of country music. Additionally, the pa-triotic content of county music seems motivated by the need to conform rather than an earnest desire to send a positive message.

Moreover, country artists’ newfound respect for American pa-triotism is promoting ignorance in our country and preventing those who question the nation’s actions from attaining success. The Dixie Chicks, arguably the most successful country group in the nation’s history, were taped saying at a concert in England, “just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” As a result, the Dixie Chicks’ music was removed from the playlist of nearly every country radio station nationwide, and the band received innumerable death threats. The Dixie Chicks story proves that in a nation where free speech is considered a fundamental principle, the pressure to be patriotic in country music is limiting free speech and therefore undermining real American values. Also, country mu-sic promotes intolerance of foreign cultures and unpopular beliefs.

However, despite all of country music’s flaws, it also has significant benefits. Alan Jackson’s “Where were you (when the world stopped turning)?” was written in the wake of the attacks on 9/11, and includes heartfelt lyrics such as “Did you weep for the children that lost their dear loved ones?” Jackson wrote a career-defining song that commemorates the innocent victims of 9/11 in a tasteful way. The song helped Americans mourn the losses of 9/11 and united people under the banner of patriotism.

Conversely, the immensely popular Toby Keith track “Courtesy of the red, white, and blue (The Angry American),” from Shock’n Yall, represents the negative use of patriotism in country music. The flip side to Jackson’s, “Where were you when the world stopped turning”, “Courtesy” is a 9-11 song for those who thought Jackson’s heartbreak and compassion was for weaker citizens. One of the most notable lyrics was “somewhere in Iraq, they will get a boot in their a**.” The problem with this is that Keith is capitalizing on the tragedy of 9/11 to obtain success and preach hatred for others. He encourages ignorance by not explain-ing who deserves “a boot in their a**” and creating the impres-sion that all people in the Middle East are responsible for 9/11.

Patriotism in country music, when used in a tasteful and genu-ine manner brings people together and can be the basis for great songs. Yet, as long as patriotic songs continue to come out in such abundance, their beauty and sincerity will be stripped, and the people who listen to these songs, will continuously be subjected to a one-sided point of view.

Patriotism In Country Music

“Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue”

By Dan Shapiro

The Guardian

Toby Keith performs for troops on a USO tour

Page 37


issue 3-

Dear Reader,

The Editorial Board of the Horace Mann Review is please to announce that the Review will be offering subscriptions this year. The Review, Horace Mann’s award winning political journal, is now its 17th volume. We are committed to publishing six issues in this school year on politics, current events, and public policy. Note that if your subscription reaches us mid-year, we will mail you all issues already pub-lished.

The Horace Mann Review has been honored with the American Scholastic Press Association awards for First Place with Special Merit overall and best high school political magazine in the country. Also, the National Scholastic Press Association has presented us with their “All American” status with five special merits, the high-est possible ranking.

Subscriptions cost $35. Checks should be made payable to The Horace Mann Re-view. The Review is dedicated to delivering the issues to subscribers in a timely manner. We hope that you take advantage of this opportunity, and support one of Horace Mann’s most important publications. Please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Kunal MalkaniEditor-in-Chief

SubScribe To

THe Horace Mann review

In recent years, writing songs about American patrio-tism has been used as a stepping-stone to obtain suc-cess in the country music industry. Toby Keith, one of country music’s most popular artists released his most successful album to date in 2003, Shock’n Y’all.

The title is a play on shock and awe, the phrase used by the US military to describe the initial air offense against Iraq in 2003. It re-flects Keith’s strong patriotism and unbending pro-military stance, which he expresses through regular USO trips to military bases in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. Patriotic themes abound in the hit single American Soldier and in the light-hearted live track, The Taliban Song, which scornfully mocks the deposed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Shock’n Y’all is a prime example of the country music industry’s obsession with nationalism in a post 9/11 world, but the ramifications of this phenomenon are not always positive.

Country artists are using patriotism to reach Keith’s multi-platinum status, and as patriotic records gain prevalence their messages become insincere. According to Ron Shapiro, former President of Atlantic Records and current manager of multiple country artists, “when one artist strikes a nerve with the public in a big way, there is an unfortunate trend that generally follows, a seemingly endless parade of copy cats.” Country artists release patriotism-themed albums to replicate Keith’s success, but the pa-triotic messages become clichés rather than genuine sentiments.

The pressure to write patriotic records has led to a reduction in the quality and variety of country music. Additionally, the pa-triotic content of county music seems motivated by the need to conform rather than an earnest desire to send a positive message.

Moreover, country artists’ newfound respect for American pa-triotism is promoting ignorance in our country and preventing those who question the nation’s actions from attaining success. The Dixie Chicks, arguably the most successful country group in the nation’s history, were taped saying at a concert in England, “just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” As a result, the Dixie Chicks’ music was removed from the playlist of nearly every country radio station nationwide, and the band received innumerable death threats. The Dixie Chicks story proves that in a nation where free speech is considered a fundamental principle, the pressure to be patriotic in country music is limiting free speech and therefore undermining real American values. Also, country mu-sic promotes intolerance of foreign cultures and unpopular beliefs.

However, despite all of country music’s flaws, it also has significant benefits. Alan Jackson’s “Where were you (when the world stopped turning)?” was written in the wake of the attacks on 9/11, and includes heartfelt lyrics such as “Did you weep for the children that lost their dear loved ones?” Jackson wrote a career-defining song that commemorates the innocent victims of 9/11 in a tasteful way. The song helped Americans mourn the losses of 9/11 and united people under the banner of patriotism.

Conversely, the immensely popular Toby Keith track “Courtesy of the red, white, and blue (The Angry American),” from Shock’n Yall, represents the negative use of patriotism in country music. The flip side to Jackson’s, “Where were you when the world stopped turning”, “Courtesy” is a 9-11 song for those who thought Jackson’s heartbreak and compassion was for weaker citizens. One of the most notable lyrics was “somewhere in Iraq, they will get a boot in their a**.” The problem with this is that Keith is capitalizing on the tragedy of 9/11 to obtain success and preach hatred for others. He encourages ignorance by not explain-ing who deserves “a boot in their a**” and creating the impres-sion that all people in the Middle East are responsible for 9/11.

Patriotism in country music, when used in a tasteful and genu-ine manner brings people together and can be the basis for great songs. Yet, as long as patriotic songs continue to come out in such abundance, their beauty and sincerity will be stripped, and the people who listen to these songs, will continuously be subjected to a one-sided point of view.

Patriotism In Country Music

“Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue”

By Dan Shapiro

The Guardian

Toby Keith performs for troops on a USO tour

Page 38

PatRiotisM


Documents

Issue 3 - Patriotism