Ukrainian Independence Day parades: Compare & contrast

Whereas Ukraine put on a somber and patriotic Independence Day parade in Kyiv, in traditional national dress, without cursing or mocking anybody...

"Defiant Ukraine turns on military display"

... the terrorists and rebels in Donetsk garishly paraded Ukrainian POWs on the street to cheers of "fascists," "f-ing demons" and "faggots," then symbolically "washed" the street after them with a water truck:

"Kremlin-backed separatists humiliate Ukrainian army in Donetsk parade (VIDEO)."

UPDATE (08.25.2014): The forced march and intentional public humiliation of Ukrainian POWs in Donetsk was likely a war crime under the Geneva Conventions: "Donetsk POW March: When Is A Parade A War Crime?" 

The misled and brainwashed crowd in Donetsk was ready to tear their brothers apart like animals. 

Reconciliation in Eastern Ukraine will be a decades-long endeavor, but first Ukraine's victory there against Russian aggression must be secured.

Happy Independence Day to my Ukrainian friends!  You have suffered much already; may you endure till the end.  Glory to Ukraine!  Glory to the heroes!  Слава Україні -- Героям слава!

"Ukrainian Independence Day 2014: the long road to true Ukrainian independence"

Applebaum: Ukraine needs MORE nationalism, not less

Yes, exactly!  Nationalism -- called patriotism in most contexts -- is necessary for any country to form its own identity and stay together.

Nationalism is not a scary word by itself; and it is certainly not synonymous with "fascism," "jingoism" or "xenophobia," as Russian media, politicians and academics would have us believe.

Concludes Anne Applebaum [emphasis mine]:

Thus do the tiny group of nationalists in Ukraine, whom perhaps we can now agree to call patriots, represent the country’s only hope of escaping apathy, rapacious corruption, and, eventually, dismemberment.

And this should be no surprise: In the nineteenth century, no sensible freedom fighter would have imagined it possible to create a modern state, let alone a democracy, without some kind of nationalist movement behind it. Only people who feel some kind of allegiance to their society—people who celebrate their national language, literature, and history, people who sing national songs and repeat national legends—are going to work on that society’s behalf. This goes for Russians, too, though tragically they insist on looking to their imperial traditions as a source of national pride, instead of to their liberal leaders in the early twentieth century or to their outstanding Soviet-era dissidents, the founders of the modern human rights movement.

In the West, we know this, but lately, we rarely admit it. That’s in part because we remember very well the disasters that ethnic nationalism, cloaked as fascism or sometimes as communism, brought in the twentieth century. Europeans in particular now go out of their way to downplay national differences, which is usually good. Territorial disputes in Europe have dissolved, since open borders make it simply less important whether Alsace is French or German. But European democracy would fail if European politicians did not also appeal to patriotism, did not take national interests into account, and did not address themselves to the special problems of their particular nations, too.

In the United States, we dislike the word “nationalism” and so, hypocritically, we call it other things: “American exceptionalism,” for example, or a “belief in American greatness.” We also argue about it as if it were something rational—Mitt Romney wrote a book that put forth the “case for American greatness”—rather than acknowledging that nationalism is fundamentally emotional. In truth, you can’t really make “the case” for nationalism; you can only inculcate it, teach it to children, cultivate it at public events. If you do so, nationalism can in turn inspire you so that you try to improve your country, to help it live up to the image you want it to have. Among other things, that thought inspired the creation of this magazine 100 years ago.

Ukrainians need more of this kind of inspiration, not less—moments like last New Year’s Eve, when more than 100,000 Ukrainians sang the national anthem at midnight on the Maidan. They need more occasions when they can shout, “Slava Ukraini—Heroyam Slava”—“Glory to Ukraine, Glory to its Heroes,” which was, yes, the slogan of the controversial Ukrainian Revolutionary Army in the 1940s, but has been adopted to a new context. And then of course they need to translate that emotion into laws, institutions, a decent court system, and police training academies. If they don’t, then their country will once again cease to exist.

Incidentally, the leader of Ukraine's most nationalist party, Svoboda, recently wrote an op-ed saying much the same thing: that given Ukraine's history and geography, nationalism is much more about national defense and preventing any future dismemberment of the Ukrainian state by outside powers. See: "Oleh Tiahnybok: Rescue nationalism from 'Pandora's box'."

Nationalism Is Exactly What Ukraine Needs

By Anne Applebaum

May 12, 2014 | New Republic

URL: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117505/ukraines-only-hope-nationalism

What is a 'U.S.' corporation and why it matters

I stumbled upon this old article below but it's still fresh and new. You should read the whole thing, but this part jumps out at me [emphasis mine]:

Other countries see themselves as countries, and compete with us as a country, for their benefit and the benefit of their people. As much as some of us might want a world in which we all cooperate and share and have "free trade" and other ideals and dreams, the fact is that other countries understand themselves as countries. Companies and industries located in other countries are operated to benefit their people. Their governments give them special benefits to help them compete with our companies. And then they are taxed so their country can have good schools and infrastructure and all the rest of the benefits of the modern world, for them.

And if we do not respond in kind, then their people end up better off at the expense of our people.

Anybody who's taken Econ 101 or Political Economy has surely learned that protectionism is bad; it leads to higher prices for consumers, can often escalate to beggar-thy-neighbor policies, etc. This is the economic theory, and it's sound as far as it goes. But it is not political-economic reality. 

When every other country -- including China -- is looking out for its own corporations' best interests while we preach "free trade," it is tantamount to America's unilateral disarmament.  

Moreover, in the history of the modern world there has never been free trade.  As an ideal, free trade is about as realistic as communist utopia.  In a few hundred years, yes, when we're all wearing Star Trek-style unitards that come in three colors and speaking Esperanto, then maybe we will have free trade. But before then we will probably have invented a better economic system than capitalism. So free trade is a silly ideal. The best we can hope for is freer trade, mostly achieved on a bilateral basis, with friendly countries that we trust.

Nor can we look at trade in isolation. Yes, Americans pay very cheap prices, compared to other countries, for goods like flat screen TVs and automobiles. However, fewer and fewer Americans these days have jobs or sufficient income to pay even these "reduced" prices that are thanks to "free trade." Yet many working-class Americans have lost their manufacturing jobs because of free trade and globalization. So what good are cheaper goods if they are still not affordable for the un- and underemployed?  

And there is more to global trade -- and the economics that drives it -- than tariffs.  For instance, taxes.  Most people don't realize that about one-third of global trade is intra-company trade, i.e. trade in intermediate goods between parts of the same company. There is also inter-company trade, i.e. trade between two or more internal business entities that results in a legal transfer of prices. 

To make things even more complicated, there is also trade in financial products between internal entities of one company, or related entities (with the same beneficial owner), such as inter-company loans.

This year, the conservative publication Forbes estimated that 95 percent of America's trade deficit comes from intra-company trade; and much of this intra-firm trade is designed precisely to avoid and evade taxes, that's its only purpose. And so instead of discussing ideal concepts like free trade, we ought to be discussing real things like "arm's-length transfer pricing."  

There are positive signs of change in the G20 countries and the OECD, however. With most of the world in recession, fiscally ailing national governments everywhere are trying to prevent tax base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). They realize that many multinational corporations (MNCs) are playing a shell game with their operations, sales, and tax declarations to lower their overall (global) tax bill. Such tax shenanigans are corporations' "responsibility" in order to maximize returns for their shareholders, say business groups, economists and the financial press. They say "double taxation" of their firms in different countries is unfair and economically inefficient. 

(Conspicuously, U.S. businesses say little about their moral, patriotic obligations to the USA, where their corporate HQ are located. Thus companies like Google and Apple may call themselves "American" -- falsely so, in my view -- although any Middle Eastern sheikh may own their stock; and meanwhile they pay most of their taxes in places like Ireland and employ most of their workers overseas).

At the same time, it is governments' responsibility to maximize tax receipts to provide for the welfare of their citizens; and governments argue that "double non-taxation" is just as economically inefficient and harmful. It is in governments' collective interest to stop a global "race to the bottom" where MNCs are registered for tax purposes in tiny havens like the Caymans, Bahamas and Ireland.  

And governments require tax revenues to re-train workers who lost their jobs to overseas low-cost competition, through programs like U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Keep alert and informed as events unfold, because the global debate on BEPS -- and the inevitable push-back from international Big Business lobbies -- is only going to get more intense....

What Does It Mean To Be An 'American' Corporation?

By Dave Johnson

April 26, 2013 | Crooks and Liars

What does it mean to be an American? What does it mean to be an American corporation? An article in the Wall Street Journal the other day should trigger questions like these.

WSJ: Domestic-Based Multinationals Hiring Overseas,

Multinational companies based in the U.S. boosted their global work forces in 2011 almost entirely by hiring workers overseas, underscoring the slow growth in the U.S. job market.

... The paltry hiring at home reflects where multinational companies are focusing their attention. Stronger economic growth in overseas markets in Asia and Latin America is driving their expansion, reinforcing their shift toward cheaper labor or closer access to customers.

The U.S. parents of multinational firms account for about one-fifth of total private U.S. employment. Since 1999, employment by U.S. multinationals is down by 1.1 million inside the U.S., while it is up by 3.8 million overseas.

The hiring by American companies is not happening in the U.S. At the same time these companies are holding $1.7 trillion of profits outside of the country, away from their own shareholders and our economy to avoid their taxes, while pushing to dramatically lower the taxes they pay us – and even to get out of paying any taxes at all on money they make outside of the country!

Why Do We Have Corporations?

Why do We the People even have laws that allow corporations and give them special benefits? The answer obviously is for our common benefit -- why else would we do it? The corporate form of a business enables the company to easily obtain capital from investors, in order to accomplish large-scale projects that benefit us. To encourage this we give these entities special privileges. For example, we limit liability which means the investors are not held liable for the actions of the company – they won't lose more than their investment if the company gets sued for some reason. We provide a system that helps them obtain financing, insurance, market liquidity and all kinds of things to help those investors get a good return on their money.

Benefit: We the People want railroads, but it takes a lot of money to build and operate a railroad. And our system wants private companies to do the work of building and operating railroads instead us just doing it ourselves. So we set up a way for a private company to gather investment from lots of people.

Why Do We Want "American" Corporations?

Why don't we just contract with any old corporation that comes along to get things done for us? Who cares what country these entities are from? Why should we as a country want to encourage and support our American corporations? Because American corporations make money for us. That is the whole point.

Other countries see themselves as countries, and compete with us as a country, for their benefit and the benefit of their people. As much as some of us might want a world in which we all cooperate and share and have "free trade" and other ideals and dreams, the fact is that other countries understand themselves as countries. Companies and industries located in other countries are operated to benefit their people. Their governments give them special benefits to help them compete with our companies. And then they are taxed so their country can have good schools and infrastructure and all the rest of the benefits of the modern world, for them.

And if we do not respond in kind, then their people end up better off at the expense of our people.

As long as other countries operate for the benefit of their people, it is our job to keep up our end of the bargain as it exists and operate as a country for the benefit of our people. This means that we support our companies, and expect them to bring the money they make back here, and share the returns with us.

We The People Used To Understand Who Is The Boss

We the People (used to) understand that these companies exist for our common benefit and (used to) expect certain things back from these corporations. We (used to) expect them to provide high-quality products and services and not engage in fraud and trickery. We (used to) expect them to provide a safe and fair work environment with good wages and benefits. We (used to) expect them to be good citizens that benefit the communities where they operate. And our laws and enforcement (used to) make sure they operated that way – for our common benefit.

These understandings and expectations have disappeared. An Apple executive articulated the new corporate understanding to The New York Times. He said giant multinationals like Apple "don't have an obligation to solve America's problems." And to prove it, American corporations are holding $1.7 trillion in profits outside the country – just sitting there – rather than bringing that money home, paying the taxes due and then paying it out to shareholders or using it to "create jobs" with new factories, research facilities and equipment.

We The People Have Forgotten

Citizens, elected officials and corporate management have forgotten why we have corporations and who they are supposed to serve. We have instead developed a system in which corporations exist for their own sake, doing anything they want to do, and doing these things only to enrich the few who own and manage them.

There is no longer an understanding and expectation that these entities – creations entirely of We, the People -- are supposed to exist for the common good of We, the People. They no longer try to provide high-quality goods and services. They no longer feel they must avoid fraud and trickery – and without enforcement of rules are able to gain advantage over others that do not operate this way. They no longer provide a safe and fair work environment with good wages and benefits. They are not good citizens that benefit the communities and country where they operate.

They are no longer under the control of We the People.

Are American Multinationals Really American?

For all intents and purposes giant "American" multinational corporations have transformed into entities with completely different interests from their American workers, customers, communities, citizens and government. These corporations are no longer operating in the interest of America or any country, while claiming the benefits of being American corporations (when it suits them.)

For example, the giant American multinational corporations are now set up and structured to avoid paying taxes here, or to any country. They set countries against each other in their hunt for low-wage labor, subsidies and advantages in markets.

Some companies are even "American" when it suits them, and not "American" when it does not. The post, Unraveling The Romney/Bain Tax Story drew on a New York Times report, Offshore Tactics Helped Increase Romneys’ Wealth. From the post:

Why is part of the same company set up based in Delaware, and part in the Cayman Islands or Luxemburg or Bermuda? Because the functions of the American-based company are those functions that avoid taxes on foreign entities, and the functions of the Caymans-based part are the functions that would have to pay US taxes if it was in the US. But in reality it is the same company -- except for tax purposes! Here is the explanation of the foreign-based parts, from the Times article:

Had those funds been set up in the United States, the Romneys and other American investors would probably have been subject to certain federal taxes for their ownership of “controlled foreign corporations.” Setting up the funds in the Caymans allowed them to avoid those taxes.

Here is an explanation of the American-based parts,

Another appeal of offshore funds is that they help private equity attract investment from deep-pocketed big institutions like pension funds and university endowments. While these are generally tax-exempt, they are liable for taxes on “unrelated business taxable income” if they put money in funds that use debt financing to make investments.

So why aren't they all just foreign-based? Why do they need to have an American-based part? One reason is that making the loans that run up the debt that enables these companies to get the interest deductions (more tax avoidance) would incur income taxes if the loans came from a foreign entity,

Beyond their tax advantages, however, offshore funds controlled by American money managers can also create new tax problems. Those funds are limited in their ability to make loans without triggering corporate income taxes — an issue for Sankaty funds. Therefore, they usually have a parallel domestic fund that makes the loans, holds them for a period before selling a portion to the offshore fund, a practice known as “season and sell.”

And, of course, the American-based entities enable the low "carried interest" tax rate that hedge fund managers enjoy. The company paying Romney can't be foreign-based,

So-called carried interest, the cut of a fund’s investment gains earned by its managers, enjoys a favorable tax treatment. But under I.R.S. rules, carried interest cannot be derived from a corporation, like the offshore blockers used by Sankaty.

The American-based entities can buy American companies without incurring "foreign-based" obligations. Then the foreign-based entities can avoid the taxes that the American-based buyers of companies would have to pay. And the foreign-based investors can be in the foreign-based parts of the company, avoiding US tax obligations. Also American entities like pension funds can avoid US taxes they would otherwise have to pay.

To put it another way, the same company can pretend it is US-based when that is what it needs to be, and foreign-based when that is what it needs to be.

What Can We Do?

First of all, we want and need corporations, for the reasons outlines above. For our common benefit, to accomplish large-scale projects, and as a result to bring shared prosperity to our citizens.

But we have to be the boss of them. We have to understand again that We the People set up this system of corporations for our common benefit. (Why else would we set up these things?) And we have to again call ourselves a country.

Can we align the interests of these giant corporations with our national, American interest? If we cannot, they should be stripped of their American corporate privileges and be required to do the same things as other entities that are not wedded to the national interest. And then We the People can build and support American companies that are.

Zogby: U.S. is a work in progress - NO WAY, JOSE!

Apparently, prominent pollster James Zogby is a fellow card-carrying member of the Blame America First crowd.  He wrote:  

America is, we are told, the exceptional nation: the greatest democracy, the greatest producer of wealth, the model nation that is envied by the world, a people destined to lead the world. In the language of those on the right, America becomes an idol, infused by the Creator with blessings and qualities so self-evident, that to question this article of faith is akin to heresy.   

I wonder why we are so insecure that we need to engage in endless self-praise. And I can't help but wonder what the rest of the world thinks of all this in the face of policies and behaviors that make such a wildly different statement.

He actually cares what the rest of the world thinks about us!...  That's a dead giveaway he feels guilty about American power and secretly despises its providential responsibility to lead the world, just like all liberals do.

Nevertheless, Zogby maintains that "America does have a good story to tell," which consists of U.S. liberals and progressives fighting and winning all the good fights: ending segregation; defending civil rights; establishing gender equality; the peace movement; consumer and environmental protections, etc.

"The American story is not one about a country that was born great. It is the story of a country that is struggling to become better," concludes Zogby.  Well, that just can't be squared with our Founding Myths.  If we were always great -- if indeed we were at our greatest at the time of our Founding Fathers -- then there is no getting better, only decline as we abandon their first principles.  Therefore, even though I still Blame America First, I must reject Zogby's hypothesis. 

Love it or leave it! ... Unless you hate America's gays, atheists, Muslims, minorities, labor unions, public education, Hollywood, intellectuals, NOW, the ACLU, the IRS... then you can stay.

America Has a Good Story; But It's Not the One Politicians Tell

By James Zogby

August 18, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/S7rIsn

Sirota: U.S. Muslims more loyal than Evangelicals

They used to say the same thing about Catholics: when JFK was elected, non-Catholics were worried he'd take orders from the Pope in Rome. Nowadays it's Muslims' turn.

Why Many Evangelical Christians Are More "Un-American" Than US Muslims

By David Sirota

November 29, 2011 | AlterNet

If you have the stomach to listen to enough right-wing talk radio, or troll enough right-wing websites, you inevitably come upon fear-mongering about the Unassimilated Muslim. Essentially, this caricature suggests that Muslims in America are more loyal to their religion than to the United States, that such allegedly traitorous loyalties prove that Muslims refuse to assimilate into our nation and that Muslims are therefore a national security threat.

Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated just how apocryphal this story really is. It found that Muslim Americans are one of the most — if not the single most — loyal religious group to the United States. Now, comes the flip side from the Pew Research Center's stunning findings about other religious groups in America (emphasis mine):

American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46 percent of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90 percent), Germany (70 percent), Britain (63 percent) and Spain (53 percent) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion. Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70 percent in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22 percent say they are primarily American.

If, as Islamophobes argue, refusing to assimilate is defined as expressing loyalty to a religion before loyalty to country, then this data suggests it is evangelical Christians who are very resistant to assimilation. And yet, few would cite these findings to argue that Christians pose a serious threat to America's national security. Why the double standard?

Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter. In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state — and every other culture and religion is expected to assimilate to Christianity. To do otherwise is to be accused of waging a "War on Christmas" — or worse, to be accused of being a disloyal to America and therefore a national security threat.

Of course, a genuinely pluralistic America is one where — regardless of the religion in question — we see no conflict between loyalties to a religion and loyalties to country. In this ideal America, those who identify as Muslims first are no more or less "un-American" than Christians who do the same (personally, this is the way I see things).

But if our politics and culture are going to continue to make extrapolative judgments about citizens' patriotic loyalties based on their religious affiliations, then such judgments should at least be universal — and not so obviously selective or brazenly xenophobic.

FOX: Does Obama hate America?

In other words, "This whole thing may be made up but that is, however, beside the point." The point is that a false picture is the perfect symbol of right-wingers' false belief in Obama's anti-Americanism.

Just more stupid, wanton Obama-bashing from America's most popular news outlet.

Does Obama Love the USA?

By Liz Peek

June 14, 2010 | FOXNews.com

Today is Flag Day, a holiday that celebrates the adoption of our nation's standard by the Second Continental Congress in 1777. Ironically, there is currently an e-mail circulating the Internet that contrasts a press conference held by President Obama with those of several of his predecessors, including George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. The difference? The former presidents stand surrounded by big, beautiful American flags; President Obama is flag-less. Not a single Old Glory festoons his podium.

It is impossible to know if this photo is genuine. It could well be that, like so many things on the Internet, the photo has been cropped, or the event is not really a press conference. That is, however, beside the point. The picture may be false, but the message will ring true to many Americans, who have come to doubt President Obama's patriotism. [...]

"I pledge allegience to Gene's shirt and to the republic for which it stands..."

And if Gene wasn't there, I bet they would have dug up some blue & red crayons and paper and drawn a flag, then pledged allegiance to it!

"God bless Amurica!"

Illinois GOP forgets flag so they Pledge Allegience to Gene, a man in an American flag t-shirt

August 23, 2009 | Windy City Watch

URL: http://blog.windycitywatch.com/2009/08/illinois-gop-forgets-flag-so-they.html

Post-Bush Patriotism

Courtney Martin is as sincere and idealistic as ever. 

Reflections on Obama-Era Patriotism

By Courtney E. Martin

February 16, 2009 |  Prospect.org

 

President's Day is an opportunity to bore children with that old story about George Washington and the cherry tree (entirely fabricated by Mason Locke Weems, a turn-of-the-century Deepak Chopra, by the way), save on the new car you've been eyeing (must we always link patriotism with spending?), and most important, reflect on the deeper meaning of being American.

 

Patriotism has gotten a spirited resurrection in the last year thanks to the longest and one of the most closely watched presidential campaigns in history, which led to an election with the highest turnout ever (128 million). From local restaurants to political blogs, water coolers to car pools, Americans were constantly chattering about who would be the best-equipped and most visionary leader for this country. We asked ourselves and each other, who do we want our president to be? The sometimes implicit, sometimes explicit core of these discussions was an even deeper question: Who the heck are we?

 

This is the question that has defined the ebb and flow of patriotism for the last century. In the 1930s and 1940s, loving your country was framed as the antidote to communism; President Harry Truman's obsession with pledges turned patriotism into a safety blanket. Sen. Joseph McCarthy took it to the next level, selling patriotism as more of a bromide than a blanket -- a sedative so effective it put even free-thinkers to sleep. Vietnam was the alarm bell that awakened a nation; young people all over the country questioned the wisdom of using patriotism as an excuse to kill innocent people. It wasn't until the attacks of September 11 that a 21st-century patriotism was born. On that day, we fled to public places -- parks and bars and churches -- and held hands with strangers. Despite the president's framing that the proper response to terrorism was consumerism and retaliation, Americans wrested a deeper meaning out of the unfathomable violence. We wanted to be together and safe.

 

But our precious opportunity to revitalize true patriotism was hijacked by a war-mongering administration and our own complacent fear. In the years that followed, hollow patriotism -- appeals to God and American values -- played on a loop that echoed with deadly hypocrisy. Over the last couple of years we began to collectively rise up in response to the Bush administration's infuriating policies and demand a more complex, more honest definition of patriotism from our nation's leaders. And finally, more than seven years after September 11, we got to experience rare unity in the form of Obama's landslide election, made possible by the efforts of average Americans.

 

Now here we are. After September 11 and its long fallout, after the most drawn-out campaign in history, after the inauguration of a new president, who are we? Improbably, we are less economically stable yet more hopeful than ever. We are the most racially diverse population in the history of the United States. We are wealthy and we are struggling, with not much in between. We are still shockingly segregated from one another -- socially, economically, interpersonally.

 

Today, patriotism means genuine, once-and-for-all integration. We can't keep waving our red, white, and blue flags in separate countries. We can't keep insisting that we are one nation, when, in fact, we are so very many separated largely by arbitrary but life-defining demographic differences.

 

Loving this country means not just loving and interacting with one segment of it. Long after Jim Crow and Brown v. Board of Education, we've been willfully segregated while spouting a lot of rhetoric about the "melting pot" and the "American Dream."  In 2000 I met a little girl in South Africa who asked me in utter amazement, "So in America, people of different races all live right next door to one another?" I took a look around and had to tell her that, in the U.S., the segregation was not much different from Langa Township in barely post-apartheid South Africa.

 

Claims that Obama's presidency somehow marked the beginning of post-racial America highlighted, at worst, just how shallow our understanding of difference often is, and, at best, how hungry we are for actual integration. We know in our bones that America is defined by our diversity, that we are great -- not because of our economic wealth or our easily exported celebrity culture -- but because of our capacity to hold so many religions, so many ethnicities, so many philosophies and lifestyles, within our borders. But patriotism is best demonstrated by transcending the borders within our own lives, not sitting back in our own little silos.

 

To realize this definition of patriotism, we need the guts to walk up to people unlike us and introduce ourselves, the initiative to create authentic relationships with folks outside of our organic social sphere, the presence to recognize -- and this is how bad it really is -- that those who work for us or employ us, those who serve us or are served by us, those in both red states and blue are human beings with things to teach. Too often, class, race, political, and geographic differences still dehumanize us. The taxi driver is just hands and foreign music. NASCAR moms are just minivans and juice boxes. We neglect to discover the stories behind the stereotypes. Sometimes it feels as if we're moving too fast to be curious anymore, to look beyond the cultural shorthand.

 

In 2009, a year of so much peril and promise, it's time to define patriotism as our capacity to have social courage in our day-to-day lives, to learn from folks across the many fault lines that carve ignorance and indifference through America. We are only as patriotic as the company we keep, by which I mean, if you live in a homogeneous bubble, then you are missing out on the lived experience of what it means to be American today. Your understanding of this country is stunted and incomplete.

 

There are many things more patriotic than singing the national anthem or sporting a flag pin on your lapel: introducing yourself to a maintenance worker in your office building, calling up that diehard Republican cousin and asking her to breakfast, becoming friends with someone 30 years older than you or many tax brackets below you. And beyond the critical one-on-one interactions, it is profoundly patriotic to support big-picture policies that attack the class divide, strengthen public education, and fight discrimination on every level.

 

I cannot tell a lie. This country is amazing, but it's also still painfully segregated and will remain so until Americans collectively decide that true patriotism is treating one another -- regardless of status, political affiliation, or race -- like the potential teachers that we are.

Re: Michelle Obama's America - And Mine

I can't speak for all young Americans, and whether they're proud of their country. I know even less about Michelle Obama.

But I'm highly suspicious of Michelle Malkin's brand of pride as she describes it. It's troubling -- although typical of jingoists wrapping themselves in the flag -- that most of her points of pride in America relate to our military: Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Medal of Honor ceremonies, the Blue Angels, Pearl Harbor, and the U.S.S. Abraham. Sure, I'm proud of our military, I respect its difficult job, but I don't worship it. And I never forget that its real job is to kill people -- a necessary job at times, but always a regrettable one, not a blessed calling.

Malkin's is a pride that says, "Ignore or deny all your country's warts and defects; love it or leave it." Hers is a pride that she wears on her sleeve like a badge of honor. But advertising that you love your country, or even genuinely feeling it, is not an accomplishment. It is not even a virtue. If all you do is say and feel it, it's an empty emotion.

Indeed, if that feeling of pride compels you to deny real problems in your country, and make apologies for your country's faults, then it is an unhealthy emotion. It is exactly what your country doesn't need from you. It is like the mother who is the only one who can't see her child, a real delinquent, isn't mommy's little angel. Her love for her child, without strings or conditions, is admirable, but it is actually harmful to her child, because such blind love enables continued bad behavior and impedes the child's development.

If you love your country like you love your child, then you want your country to do what's right and make you proud. You feel a responsibility to help it. You never renounce your country, because it's a part of you and who you are. By accident of birth, you have no choice in the matter, just as children don't choose their parents and vice-versa.

Moreover, just as parents should not live vicariously through their children, so too citizens should not draw excessive pride from their country's accomplishments. Similarly, children should be proud of their parents and grandparents and where they came from, but they should not rest on their forebears' reputation and past accomplishments -- or worse, behave like privileged, spoiled brats because of their great inheritance. Children have a responsibility to find their own way and make their own reputation.

So, like Michelle Malkin, I'm proud of my country for things like Iwo Jima and George Bush's funding of anti-HIV in Africa. But those deeds -- and this is so often forgotten! -- are not the measure of me personally. Simply for being lucky enough to be born in America, I do not have the right to borrow against America's greatness and claim it makes me a better person, or a person worth looking up to. And my country's greatness certainly does not relieve me of my responsibility to be a concerned citizen who wants to improve his country -- not just so that America continues to be "great" (whatever that means to whomever) and envied, but so that it is actually a better place to live in than today. After all, the real measure of a parent's love is wanting what's best for his children and encouraging them to be their best; it is not covering up or turning a blind eye to his children's faults. That is why parenting often requires tough love and discipline.

Likewise, America is crying out right now for tough love from Americans who really love it. And yes, that love will require change.

The last thing America needs right now is more blind flag-wavers who have nothing to offer us except their sappy, jingoistic, more-patriotic-than-thou attitude. Those people -- even if they think they mean well -- are doing us absolutely no good at all.