Some Blatant Patriotism.

[Tgace]

Yeah its a little sappy, but here it is anyway.

http://oldbluejacket.com/america.htm

 

[oldnewbie]

Here here !!

Call me sappy anyday!


Thanks

 

[ginshun]

Very sappy yes. Beautiful too though.

 

[Silat Student]

John Wayne was always a great patriot. And ready to rib those he thought weren't...look at his appearance on Laugh-in :rofl:

 

[loki09789]

Tito.....sniff, sniff, snuffle....hand me a tissue.

"I love you MAN!"

 

[rmcrobertson]

As long as we're being blatantly patriotic:

Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience


I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?

 

[Makalakumu]

Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience


I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievious persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?

This just about sums up my feelings. Good Post, Robert. :asian:

 

[loki09789]

As long as we're being blatantly patriotic:

Henry David Thoreau
Civil Disobedience


I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; ....etc.....

Yes, let's quote Thoreau on the issue of government and regulation...when he decided to hide in Walden woods to 'get back to nature' he was still getting his washing, cooking, cleaning and such done by the women in his life. How convenient and wonderful to be able to pick and choose how and where you 'detach' yourself from this cruel and unfair world to get back to the more fundamentally 'natural' roots of humanity.....

Did he ever serve in the military? Serve in governmental office? Lead or contribute to a cause of some kind (except by commenting on it perchance).

He may have been influential and a marker in Literary/philosophical history because of the ideas he stirred, but he was talking out his **** just like anyone else will...only he did it with an editor/publisher and enough art to get attention...while he lived a very anti-equality life with his women folk.

 

[rmcrobertson]

No argument there. Marx was worse.

It especially looks by by comparasion with a staunch defender of women's lib, a man who had served in the army for so long like John Wayne...hey, wait a minnit.

 

[loki09789]

No argument there. Marx was worse.

It especially looks by by comparasion with a staunch defender of women's lib, a man who had served in the army for so long like John Wayne...hey, wait a minnit.

True that, but he can at least claim consistency of principle when he portrayed soldiers, 'Americans' that fit his vision when he practiced his craft of acting.

I remember Rooster Cogburn as a good example where He develops a respect/romance with K.Hepburn over the course of his journeys with this independent, principled and strong woman.

I don't remember Thoreau doing much more than getting published, getting laid, and getting pampered while getting drunk.

He could turn a nice phrase though.

 

[rmcrobertson]

You know, it's remarkable how few of the famous gung ho types actually ever served in the military--though, like Ronald Reagan, they often do get a little confused about that.

Hint: this "patriotism," schtick will be a lot easier to defend if you use, say, Jimmy Stewart.

Of course, then I'll just start mentioning Dashiell Hammett (served three years, much of it in the Aleutians; imprisoned by HUAC let by Tailgunner Joe, who never served), or McGovern (decorated bomber pilot; 50+ missions), and a whole buncha others...

 

[michaeledward]

True that, but he {John Wayne} can at least claim consistency of principle when he portrayed soldiers, 'Americans' that fit his vision when he practiced his craft of acting.

:roflmao:

a 'consistency of principle' when speaking words other people wrote, looking in directions other people tell you to look, wearing clothes other people give you to wear.

Good Grief ... the man was an actor. At best, the 'consistency of principle' belongs to his agent in getting him the same part, year after year after year.

William Shatner has a similiar 'consistency of principle', doesn't he... James T Kirk and T.J. Hooker are really the same person you know (no one has ever seen them together).

 

[loki09789]

:roflmao:

a 'consistency of principle' when speaking words other people wrote, looking in directions other people tell you to look, wearing clothes other people give you to wear.

Good Grief ... the man was an actor. At best, the 'consistency of principle' belongs to his agent in getting him the same part, year after year after year.

William Shatner has a similiar 'consistency of principle', doesn't he... James T Kirk and T.J. Hooker are really the same person you know (no one has ever seen them together).

Yeah, in real life, J.Wayne seemed like the type that would be a Hollywood factory pawn that would do only what his agent told him to do and NEVER developed a relationship with his production teams during a time in Hollywood when the Studio approach meant that teams of actors, producers, directors would all work together on multiple projects.....

Of course he was an actor and subject to direction and costuming that was based on other decision makers...but he ultimately would choose the roles.

Comparing the superstar machine of today to the Hollywood studio system of the past. It wasn't 'better' than now, just different.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh....boy, do YOU need to study up on John Ford, and the actual relationship between the director and his iconic actor.

Incidentally, "Wayne," (NOT his real name) started his career as a model.

I love most of his movies, I think he was a grossly under-rated actor, and I'd a lot rather have lunch with the Duke than, say Camille Paglia. But don't let's confuse all these things with some great insight into politics--the man was a political and historical ignoramus.


When exactly was it that we started turning to ACTORS for ideas, anyway?

 

[loki09789]

You know, it's remarkable how few of the famous gung ho types actually ever served in the military--though, like Ronald Reagan, they often do get a little confused about that.

Hint: this "patriotism," schtick will be a lot easier to defend if you use, say, Jimmy Stewart.

Of course, then I'll just start mentioning Dashiell Hammett (served three years, much of it in the Aleutians; imprisoned by HUAC let by Tailgunner Joe, who never served), or McGovern (decorated bomber pilot; 50+ missions), and a whole buncha others...

Oh, if you notice my first response, it was very tongue 'n cheek. The Thoreau comment was just because I am a fan of Thoreau as a writer don't really think he was all that as a political commentor or philosopher beyond ranting.

Jimmy Stewart, Audie Murphy, Gene Hackman....all former servicemen come actors...but who said that being 'patriotic' as an actor required military service to portray servicemen in film? How do any of these guys get 'confused' about it? Because they believe it is noble in some way? Should any political critic here be scoffed or mocked because we spout about what should and should not be but don't jump into the political race ourselves?

Sounds almost "Starship Trooper" ish to assume that only former service types should be able to play military roles or be 'patriotic' in personal life. Tim Robinson, Jeanine Gerofillo (sp?) and other entertainer/actors never held political offices, owned a firearm (though they have no problem with portraying gun toting characters when they are getting paid for it), or were scientists but seem to be used as credible sources and mouth pieces for political, firearms control and environmental issues.....

 

[loki09789]

1. the man was a political and historical ignoramus.


2. When exactly was it that we started turning to ACTORS for ideas, anyway?

1. Like most Americans would be considered by anyone that went beyond high school level History study. Remember public school History classes fall under the mission goal of estilling 'citizenship' in our public education system. Not saying that it is 'bad' per se, only that it will limit what approaches may be used at times to get the base volume of content and the perspective on history to fit that 'citizenship' goal when applied to minors. When they hit college the world falls apart so they have to rebuild it on their own based on synthesis of the old and new data.

2. Boy you beat me to that idea!

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Tim Robbins says he has a policy of never commenting on soldiers, because he's never been one.

2. By "confused," I was alluding to Ronald Reagan--who once told an audience that he'd helped liberate a death camp personally, apparently because of a character he played. But it is worth adding that we seem to have quite a few politicians who've never served, who're all gung ho about shipping others off to go get shot at--and while I certainly have our current Prez in mind, he is far from the only one.

3. As for the Duke--well, I own a copy of "The Alamo--" his. But it's pretty goofy, and "Green Berets," is pretty much unspeakably awful on 19 different levels. Hell, at least Bob Hope--another idiot on politics and history--actually WENT to Vietnam a couple times during the War.

 

[ginshun]

2. By "confused," I was alluding to Ronald Reagan--who once told an audience that he'd helped liberate a death camp personally, apparently because of a character he played. But it is worth adding that we seem to have quite a few politicians who've never served, who're all gung ho about shipping others off to go get shot at--and while I certainly have our current Prez in mind, he is far from the only one.

What governmental system is it where you need to have served in the military to actually be considered a citizen, or hold public office, or vote, ect.?

Would that be like a friendly type of Fascism? We don't separate the people based on race, we'll separate them based on whether or not they served in the military. Nice plan.

 

[Tgace]

Gee. As this animation pretty much only mentioned the natural beauty of our country, I dont know where all the politics are coming from. Perhaps some people just cant let any positive statement about the USA go unchallenged.

If casinos were as predictable as who was going to respond to this thread, and what they were going to say, Id be a wealthy man....

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, that certainly applies to different parts of the political spectrum, don't it?