September 09, 2003

uh, addendum to the last entry

i have gotten emails both in appreciation of and in disgust for my remarks about treason. [here] before i blogged it, i was discussing the issue of liberals "hating" america with one of my liberal friends, and i had acknowledged that perhaps the reason for the dichotomy of opinions could be this: liberals espouse the ideals (1) that war should be avoided at all costs, and (2) that america should not try to "rule the world." this, while conservatives know that if americans do not protect american interests, no one else will. i think those are accurate respresentations of our differences on the issue. we had arrived at this point and kind of left it. to quote an old MTV real world phrase, we figured out where each other was "coming from" and left it at that. namely her liberal perspective that seeks to take the views of all the nations of the world into account, versus my conservative take, that our country comes first, and everybody else comes second. but this never actually solved the debate. it only put it off until now.

when conservatives tell liberals to please stop "hating" their own country, they are being pragmatists. this is the irony of the whole debate. the religious-idealist conservatives become pragmatists on issues of national security, whereas the telescope wielding, science-worshipping liberals suddenly sprout a hope for things they cannot see when it comes to defending america.

is this funny to anyone else? at all?

without misrepresenting anyone's point, it seems like liberals believe (1) harmony can be achieved in the world no matter who is in power anywhere (unless george bush is), that (2) the only way to gain the love of the world community is by making ourselves prone and vulnerable, and thus non-threatening, and (3) anti-american speech is free (protected) speech and (4) patriotic speech is hate speech.

i understand that my conservative views can be put in an equally condescending light, but this is my blog and i can do what i want. this is the only place i really speak my mind, anyway. so, please let me. you can always call me on it, and i will try to explain, but this is what i do. it is venting. i think it serves some purpose.

in truth, ann coulter and i are speaking from a perspective. we believe that loving america means defending it, despite it's flaws. liberals, perhaps, intend to repair those flaws by making (what i would call) anti-american statements. here's the most recent, as far as i can tell:

U.S. Is Like a 'Dumb Puppy' --johnny depp

"America is dumb, it's like a dumb puppy that has big teeth that can bite and hurt you, aggressive." [Source]

"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out." [Source]

Explaining his comments a day later, Depp said he had a metaphor that was taken "radically out of context," adding, "There was no anti-American sentiment."

"What I was saying was that, compared to Europe, America is a very young country and we are still growing as a nation," he said. "My deepest apologies to those who were offended, affected, or hurt by this insanely twisted deformation of my words and intent." [Source]

i don't really know what problems depp exactly thinks his comments are going to solve, but they seem anti-american to me. his immature remarks are representative of the ultra-liberal position. [check out the rest of your favorite actor's and actresses opinions here.] ann coulter's book, treason, is full of examples like this: comments that are really hard to accept as "pro-american" remarks, however you look at them.

i believe the liberal position is a lofty, unattainable ideal (at least until another "long-shot" ideal that i call the millenium occurs). for now, america has got to defend herself and americans have got to put america's interests first. it may have been somewhat inaccurate to call patriotic people "real americans" because, where would we be without dissenters like our country's founders? but i do sometimes feel like people (like johnny depp) should go live somewhere else (depp lives in france). i think canada would be a great place for them, except if the country got too pro-terrorist, would-be martyrs could immigrate to canada, then sneak over the border to bomb america. wait. that's what happens now.

i am sorry if i have offended anyone with my brashness on the blog. i think sounding like ann, rush, or o'reilly is more entertaining than taking a middle-ground position all the time. if i have, in fact, offended you, then we'll have to kiss and make up later ;)

:: to the original entry ::

Posted by travis at September 9, 2003 08:44 PM | TrackBack
Comments

I can only imagine how many girls are going to be offended now that you've made that claim. Ha!

Posted by: kerri at September 9, 2003 08:53 PM

Since the President’s visit to Nashville on Monday, liberals are emerging in full force--even more than usual. The bumper stickers are out of control. Just this morning on my way to school I read one stating the following: “Pro-Constitution, Anti-Bush”--as if being Pro-Constitution and Pro-Bush are mutually excusive categories. If you claim membership in on category, you automatically forfeit all rights and abilities to claim membership in the other. Anyway, I couldn’t quite follow the liberal logic. Nevertheless, I had to laugh as I read it. I couldn’t help but think that these poor people really need a strong dose of all-encompassingly.com, or Ann Coulter, or both. Then maybe they'd figure out what Pro-Constitution really means.

Posted by: Kristie at September 11, 2003 11:09 AM