Interview with the Neo-Con

Sometime during the 90's...........

Back in the days when race was debated around the OJ trial, when feminism portrayed as a match between Naomi Wolf and Camille Paglia, and when the prospect of "another Vietnam" was written of as the paranoia of a few leftists. When Timothy McVeigh was the big name in terrorism on US soil. Back when most Americans were very secure in their belief that "it could never happen here" whether *it* was a number of things from a botched election, a serious economic meltdown, a major internal natural disaster, or a the threat of losing our Civil Liberties.

At that time, I was not particularly complacent. While not aware of what the future would bring, I was quite concerned about the environment and afraid that someday there would be "another Vietnam", but at the time had little to go on but a series of eerie hunches.

But back then in my pre-WTO protest adulthood, I did run into a series of college professors whose ideas I never realized would gain such power. Indeed, I was more worried at the time about the sociobiologists with their zeal to prove women not fit for full citizenship. But yet, they were a bunch you could not ignore or forget.

Only years would I come to know the significance of what I saw when dealing with a pack of neocon professors and neocon students.
Of course, part of that came from the fact that they were less than honest about selling their ideas to undergraduates and used a good deal of manipulation in the process. In retrospect that should surprise nobody. Often what they would do if you disagreed with their ideas was suggest that you were simply too "limited" or "provincial" or caught up in closed minded middle class morality to understand. It reminded me of certain Freudians who tried to paint everyone who disagreed with them as prudes who didn't want to hear about sex.
Among the students many of those who bought into the neo-con thinking were also great fans of Frank Herbert's "Dune" series (which has been posthumously increased by his son since). In both cases, I felt portrayed as a schmuck for suggesting that for all the problems of modern democracies, that replacing it with a bunch of scheming feudal elites wouldn't be a great trade. Such ideas according to this bunch were just corn-fed naivete. Of course, politics was all about deceiving the masses. Even as a first year biology student, I was able to point out several biological impossibilities in the stories. But that was also dismissed as closed mindedness. This crowd deemed such "mere details" as rather beneath them and best left to the "techies types" who would of course never grasp their master plans or have a real say in their grandiose master plans.

One consistent theme with the neo-cons was the idea that the ordinary person needs to be deceived. That people will behave irresponsibly if not kept in line somehow. One neo-con professor of political philosophy told me that to let people make their own decisions was tantamount to forcing them to have bad habits and watch TV 40 hours a week. In his mind the idea that people could control themselves was simply that they don't, and that to try and argue for anything different was childish and irresponsible.

In fact, both Sayyid Qutb the founder of the radical Islamist movment and Leo Strauss founder of neo-conservative political thought, believed that any people in a supposedly free society were in fact slaves to their own animal nature. And both believed that such persons are universally capable of committing extreme acts of brutality such as those committed by Gestapo, the Chinese Red Guard, or the My Lai masacre because having grown up in a democratic society left them with absolutely no internal moral compass and no ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. However, people with this "sickness" didn't know they were sick and are not capable of knowing how easily they could commit atrocities until they had done so.

Of course the irony of this is extreme seeing how both groups were so concerned about such brutality but advocated violence themselves. In fact, neo-cons see war as another necessity designed to keep the ovine gullible masses from going crazy.

"Are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia, at the moment?"

Or something like that.

But perhaps the most important lesson in dealing with the neocons is that ideas matter and political ideas can often gain power faster than anyone ever dreamed.

Now as was in the case during the 90's, there is a bit of chaos in terms of idea. People will throw terms like "Socialist", "Communist", "Nazi", "death panel" and such. Of course, the neocons blamed this on liberalism and the dangerous chaos of democracy.

But nowadays I put most of the blame on a culture of manipulative political arguments which is fostered more by the political right if anything. However, it is of utmost importance to make sure the political ideas are taken seriously by progressives rather than basing everything on broad coalitions or attempts to poke holes in what the right is doing.

To accept anything less is to risk getting caught unaware of what might be coming down the pipe next.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Water Saving Tip 6: Skip the "Ethos" and Donate The Money

Lately, I've seen more and more people carrying around water bottles bearing the name "Ethos". I found this quite ironic. Indeed there is in my view, a certain Ethos surrounding bottled water. Namely an Ethos of unbridled consumerism, corporate control of natural resources, and unchecked exploitation of nature. But surprisingly, this claimed Ethos of this brand was ostensibly one of providing sanitary water to those who do not have it.

But I seriously question whether or not it is worth it. Bottled water is by its very nature endorses the idea that water is a corporate commodity rather than a human right.

Do people really buy bottled water because they sincerely believe that they are helping the poor of the world? If so they are grossly misinformed and mistaken.

One important question they need to ask themselves is how much of the money they spend on "Ethos" water is actually going to go to solving the world water crisis. According to their website every bottle of Ethos purchased will result in $0.05 going to provide water to those in need. This figure doesn't surprise me given the basic realities of running any business or large venture. But all the same, when I looked at a bottle of "Ethos" next to a bottle of "Dasani" in a local store, I found that the prices were $1.85 and $0.95 respectively.

But many people are sure to protest. Isn't it better to give more money to an NGO like the one sponsors by Ethos, than to the Coca Cola company? Maaaybeee!

But I have a better idea.

1. Drink tap water.
2. Or if you are truly and honestly uncomfortable with that buy both a home and a pocket water filter, along with some bisphenol free water bottles to carry.
3. Make a conservative estimate of how much money you've saved.
4. Donate 25%, 50%, or 100% of it to one of the many NGOs in this world that deal with the global water crisis and/or other problems. Or maybe to an environmental group that deals with environmental issues.

Why are people so eager to embrace a product like Ethos? What's next? Will somebody market a Hummer with the promise that some percentage of the proceeds will go to some organization finding solutions for global warming?

But for those of you desperate to buy a product that will help save the earth, you likely will have an interesting new option in the near future. It turns out that some companies trying to make algae fuel commercially viable, are diversifying into food products.

That's right food products made out of algae. With a recession and difficulty getting bank credit they have to start selling something made from their algae in order to build the facilities they need to commercialize algae fuel.

Of course, those of us who grew up on 70's and 80's portraits of ecocide perhaps had the expectation that we'd always have to filter and bottle our water-or perhaps even recycle it from our sweat and urine. That drinking from the taps would be a luxury rather than a form of thrift.

Well, plenty of predictions made in the 70's and 80's turned out to be wrong. So don't worry about mysterious foodstuff marketed as coming from algae (it isn't just a cover for something else!!). Bon appettite!

Say Goodnight Readers!!

The Dolchstosslegende Returns Home

In Ursula LeGuin's 1974 science fiction classic "The Dispossessed" the fictional philosopher, revolutionary, and founder of a planetary syndicate Laia Aseio Odo once said that "True Journey is Return". Of course, you could more simply attribute this quote directly to LeGuin, but the concept nevertheless is one that has been understood throughout the ages by religious, pilgrims, archaeologists, sailors, and tellers of tales from Homer to Tolkien. Or for that matter, anyone who has in their life time ventured not just "there and back again" as Bilbo Baggins described his adventures but moved between locations more than once.

A romantic idea indeed. But sometimes "amazing journeys" back home again, involve matters that are anything but romantic. Indeed what is arguably among the ugliest and most destructive forms of collective and politically motivated slander has found its way home back to its native land.

Like a less than penitent prodigal son gone back for succor, the Dolchstosslegende has through an unlikely journey that piles layer upon heaping lay if irony, returned home again. And those who know it's destructive history, can only look upon this development with a great deal of trepidation. Because the results were not good last time the Dolchstosslegende took hold in the Germany.

For those who haven't read my previous posts or any other sources about the Dolchstosslegende, the word literally means "dagger-stab legend" in German, but is often translated as The Stab in the Back stories. Basically it refers to the belief that the "fatherland" didn't loose the war because the a victory couldn't be procured against the other side militarily or politically because of internal factors. Which is to say that the war was lost both because the population at large failed to rally behind the war effort sufficiently (ei "Support the Troops") and because certain suspect elements of society actively sabotaged the war effort. In Weimar Germany these suspect elements were communist, socialists, labor unions, but above all the Jews. But in other well known social contexts the scapegoats were the hippies, the liberals, the draft dodgers, the protesters, and Jane Fonda.
In recent years there has been some growing recognition about the extent to which stories such as WWI Veterans getting spat on by Jews and Communists (sound familiar anyone?) fueled the rise of Nationalist Socialism in Germany during the 1920's and early 1930's.

In an age when an honest accounting of history, is becoming an ever more precious thing, I was shocked to see Jerry Lembcke (as much a scholar of the Dolchstosslegende as there has ever been), has pointed out that the these stories have taken this disturbing homeward journey. My first thought on reading the article "No Parade for Hans", was to hope that this was just a veiled warning to anti-war Americans and that the Germans themselves aren't actually going to buy into such rhetoric, as it has such a sinister and -dare I say it-evil history in their country. But upon reflection I couldn't help but wonder a series of other things.

1) How far exactly is this depoliticization of the issue going to go?

2) Did this article talk about the German reaction to WWII as "opposition to most war" in such pathological terms to convey that idea that all such opposition is pathological?

3) Does even the Holocaust counts for almost nothing in the conviction of that the most important thing is always to "support the troops" and say little else?

4) Why can't the German reaction to their own history been seen as a rational response to a terrible thing?

5) Are people losing their sense of that history or are some pundits of our day truly trying to convince people to suspend all moral scruples in favor of wanting a guaranteed compliant population during wartime?

6) Wasn't and aren't that perversion/suspension of basic morality a major part of what Nazism, neconservatism, and the Dolchstosslegende all ask(ed) of the citizen?

7) Why is so little room in this story given to the variety of opinions that different veterans may hold? And why does it occur to so few that many anti-war veterans in particular may not even want some victory parade?

8) How many people even notice the running assumption that ordinary people have no say in whether or not their government initiates a war under the new rules? Indeed, people are always told that the war is being waged in their name, and that the soldiers are fighting for their sake, and yet public opinion on the war is increasingly seen as irrelevant. Or even a potential source of disobedience if enough ordinary people aren't so sure that the war is really for their benefit or the nation's. Why have so many Americans forgotten their high school civics class?

It's been said that Hollywood movies often put historical periods through a contemporary lense. I can't help but thinking of how towards the end of the Bush era Tom Cruise playing a dissident Nazi officer said "North Africa is lost. You can serve the Fuhrer or you can serve Germany. Not both." And this from the actor who has played both a Top Gun pilot and Ron Kovic. Can it be that Americans who were once horrified and mystified so much by Nazi Germany can now more easily understand a nation that was led to horrific, unspeakable things by stories of a war effort stabbed in the back and troops spat upon?

Ultimately, this begs the question of exactly how low those who promote the Dolchstosslegende (American, German, or otherwise) are truly willing to go. If they are willing to low-ball the Holocaust and the forces that helped bring it about to support their own version of history, what else are they willing to distort, minimize, or even lie about?

Say Goodnight Readers!

Mrs. President

In 2008, the Democratic party came closer to nominating a female Presidential candidate than any major US political party ever has. I happen not to think she would have been a very good candidate, but more on that later. In my mind, this is clear evidence that our society is as ready to elect a woman as President as it ever will be short of actually doing it. (And I was ridiculed for saying much the same thing about a black President as of 2005.)
The question now is merely one of when it will happen and who it will be.

One important starting point is the fact that feminist reactions to her, are likely to be varied and unpredictable. Feminism never was about unconditional gender solidarity, especially where elected officials are concerned. One example of popular misconceptions on this point, are the recent claims that Sarah Palin is "redefining feminism". No she's not. Feminism is as Gloria Steinem is so fond of saying "simply what the dictionary says it is" namely the pursuit of full legal, societal, and economic equality for the sexes. One cannot redefine feminism but merely present a case as to how one's agenda or actions fit in with this program. And Sarah Palin's case is highly questionable at best, as it lies somewhere between that of Camille Paglia and Phyllis Schlafly. Indeed anyone who argues that because Palin is a successful woman that she's automatically a feminist has forgotten that Schlafly was also a successful lawyer.

Indeed not every female head of state has been a staunch promoter of women's rights. Golda Meir in particular was infamous for quotes to the tune of "Women's liberation is a bunch of foolishness." Margaret Thatcher while not overtly anti-feminist in the same way, was generally lukewarm at best. Often she claimed feminism had nothing to do with her success and supported policies such as indifference to high unemployment which were generally not good for women's advancement-or the society in general.

So it can be assumed-without assigning blame or charges of hypocrisy-that whether a female candidate gets support from feminists will depend on both the candidate and on the opinions of different feminists. During election 2008, there was a lot of talk about the "dilemna" of choosing between a black man and a white woman-often talking as if gender and skin color were the only relevant facts about either candidate. To this feminist the *correct answer* was to make a decision that was not based on either gender or skin color, and I ended up backing Obama in the primary and general election. I will say that despite all the talk of the "white female" vote in that election Ms. Magazine was fairly neutral on the Democratic Primary and utterly opposed to John McCain and Sarah Palin in the general election. It is worth mentioning however, that contrary to popular stereotypes Ms. Magazine enjoys a more diverse readership than most "women's magazines". Not to mention a whole list of other issues feminists tend to care about (even if not all share the same opinions) such as Iraq/Afghanistan, global warming, health reform, workers issues, the economy, education, social security, civil liberties, the environment, and more.

Another major issues regarding a female President, is that for nearly 2 decades the very concept has become all but synonymous with a particular woman, however she may have gone from first lady to Senator to Secretary of State.
In my opinion this is mostly not a good thing. Hilary Clinton's areas of popularity simply doesn't look very good on an electoral college map, and therefore it is questionable at best that she could win. One bottom line in this situation is that most people who hated Bill Clinton also hate Hilary. And not everyone who liked Bill Clinton likes Hilary.
Is misogyny a factor in this?
Probably. But it isn't the whole story.
During the 1990's Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and other right winged media got a huge amount of mileage out of the anti-Clinton cottage industry. And in part because of them a massive level of right winged media and social infrastructure was built, which made it all but impossible for any dissenting voices to be heard.
Another feminist angle on this is whether or not it is wise elect a former first lady for that role in our history, let alone pin all hope on her.

It is certainly true that Hilary Clinton does have a certain number of core supporters. From my own anecdotal experience most of them seem to be women of a certain age (late silent to mid baby boom generation) who feel a certain solidarity with her. Much of it seems to be based on life experiences. Most of these women despite all the hype did not seriously consider voting for McCain out of spite, or as Tim Wise suggested as a form of "white racial solidarity". And nearly all were insulted by the suggestion that Sarah Palin was a worthy substitute.
No. This supporters were/are better than all the media with the usual dismissive talk of them joining McCain, being "racial loyalists first" or being the same group who liked Sarah Palin will every likely acknowledge.
Such genuine solidarity is impossible to argue against directly. No matter how much patriarchal society may hate to acknowledge it as anything above petty spite in women. And no matter how much younger feminists by and large see things differently. But all the same, it is unlikely to win the day in 2016.

But too often the main reason that Hilary Clinton is seen as the "obvious" choice if the Democrats were to run a woman for President, is the assumption that there is "nobody else".

And have they learned nothing from the past elections? Surely the experience of the 21st century and before shows us that always picking the person who has been the "obvious choice" for years, is no sure strategy for victory let alone the only way to go.
Al Gore was considered an obvious choice for Democratic Nominee throughout the 90's, and John Kerry was nicknamed "JFK" at Yale. However almost nobody outside of Arkansas heard of Bill Clinton as of 1988, and before 2004 Obama was just another new Senator. Nor did many people outside of Georgia know much about Jimmy Carter when Nixon was in office.

So it would be folly to assume that just because nobody can name any possible female candidates besides Hilary Clinton (or Sarah Palin on the Republican side) doesn't mean that none exist, or that other hopefuls might not emerge at any time.

It may happen sooner than you think.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Biophilia and The Once and Future Predator Beast

These days it has become fashionable to suggest that biophilia or love or nature or biophobia or fear of nature, is the result of correct vs. corrupt socialization or education.

According to this view largely pioneered by David Orr in the 80's children will learn to fear nature if they are taught about serious environmental problems prior to high school age. And the result will become contempt of the natural world or insistence on viewing it as nothing mroe than a resource. Instead, this view suggests children should simply be given hands on projects or taken into the woods without much adult comment, in order to create "genuine environmental stewards". Increasingly, proponents of environmental literacy are influenced by this view.

In addition many "alternative" schools of thought such as Montessori suggests that kids should if possible, not know about political or global problems, until well into adolescence. According to this view if "political" parents don't wait for the right developmental moment to talk to their kids about things like war, world hunger, climate change, poverty, and other serious issues they will grow up to be detached cynics who can't bring themselves to care about anything.

But is this view correct? I decided to start by asking somebody with a lot of experience in education: my mother. She felt from both decades of teaching experience and a background in child development that such views were "simplistic". That there was no formula style of education guaranteed to make all the kids grow up to be environmentalists. Or concerned about other political issues for that matter.

So where does this view come from? Mostly the answer lies with research done in the 80's which found most environmental activists and scientists remember positive experiences with nature as children. However, I can't help but think that for every such person, there is also an avid outsdoorman who listens to Rush Limbaugh and scoffs at global warming.

Other people argue that human beings are innately biophilic such as E.O. Wilson. Many proponents of this view argue that this is simply because humans evolved in the natural world and consider it home. On a more cynical note some people argue that biophobia is natural or at least honest, considering how people have achieved a higher life expectancy in a modern industrial setting, you'd find in a Stone Aged tribe.

However a more provocative theory exists. That while humans may at one level love outdoor settings, that they are also seen as somewhat scary for a reason. And that reason involves an aspect of our evolutionary history, that many people don't want to accept. That our ancestors weren't "Man The Hunter", but largely a prey species. After all, look at the extent of predator imagery in horror movies, in children's fairy tales, in religion, and above all in war stories and war related rhetoric. After all, why is it that people tend to fear animals with sharp teeth to a degree that far outweighs the actual risk of being killed by one? Why have cats inspired so many extreme reactions from humans ranging from being worshiped in Egypt (something they seem to feel entitled to!!) to associated with the Devil or evil spirits in many other cultures? Could some of the hostility towards nature come not from a corrupt socialization or pure greed, but an unwillingness to acknowledge any human vulnerability towards nature?

Could it be that the correlation between *hawkish* politics and refusal to acknowledge problems like global warming or natural disasters, is not purely accidental? Many evolutionary psychologists, however are reluctant to take the role of predators in human evolution or our current behavior seriously. And if largely feline predators shaped our species in a way that was crucial to the development of war, could it also be more than a coincidence that so many militaristic leaders throughout history such as Napoleon, Hitler and others were known to hate and/or fear cats?

But the issue here is human love of nature. Could it not be lurking somewhere in our consciousness that nature of course provides food, water, and basically life. We know it can be beautiful. But watch out you never know what might be lurking!! A tiger! Shark! Wicked witch! Zombie! Shark! Something that is going to eat you! Could it be that in order to truly address human attitudes towards the environment that we may not just have to address rational risks and economic needs, but also a sort of innate ambivalence? A mindset that is drawn to nature and sees it as home, but also can't help but wondering what lurks behind the trees/bushes.

Either way the hidden role of predators in the phenomena of biophilia/biophobia seems to be an underexamined question. And *food* for thought.

Say goodnight readers!

Remembering Armstice Day

Happy Veterans Day Everyone!

Of course in much of the world it's Armistice Day today. And it used to be in the United States until 1954, Congress declared that the holiday would be changed to Veteran's Day. Why was this done?

In theory to recognize all veterans rather than just those of WWI. But this of course raises some of it's own questions. Was Armistice primarily about honoring WWI veterans or was it more? Or was it more about remember the end of WWI in its entirety, the living and the dead? Could the old Armistice Day have been extended to a celebration of all peace treaties where a war has come to an end? If Congress wanted to create a Veteran's Day, was it necessary to replace Armistice Day in order to do so?

I admit, that I'm taken a bit by some of the things done around the world in celebration of Armistice Day. For example many parts of the world a two minute silence is observed at 11 am. Why can't we in the US, share this with the rest of the world?

Apparently much of the change was motivated by the desire of some WWII veterans to "get their share" of what they perceived as a holiday for the WWI set. Of course, creating a "all veteran's holiday" was not a bad idea in itself-much as some people complain about too many holidays in the US. But I do question the perception of those WWII veterans who saw the Armistice Day as something that was *for* WWI veterans. In fact, it was more than that. It was a Remembrance of all those involved living and dead on an international basis. And also of the peace which ended it.

In today's world it would seem strange to have a remembrance for a war that most at the time felt was essentially over nothing. These days it is often seen as an insult to even suggest that might be the case. But in past generations, many people felt differently. Maybe it was partly because "The Great War" was believed to be the "war to end all wars" rather than the first in a sequence. (Which officially only goes to 2, but where many speculate about 3, 4, and even 5.)

However, one thing that become painfully apparent is how little WWI, is seriously remembered except as a prelude to WWI. And how it's legacies have never been taken seriously. For example people often talk about the Vietnam generation as having WWII veterans for fathers, but less is said about the generational relationship of the many Korean Vets and other member of the "Silent Generation" with their parents who lived through WWI. A lot is said about how during the early buildup of the Nazi Empire, that people who were reluctant to engage Hitler militarily had an "isolationist" mentality. But little is said about how fresh the memories of WWI were at the time. How some of the blame can be placed on WWI era propaganda about how the Germans were gassing prisoners. Or thd fact, that supposedly rearming was not in Germany's economic interest and nor were any additional war. Which is to say, that the conventional wisdom about how and why nations become aggressive CONTRIBUTED to the tendency to not take Hitler or Nazi ideology seriously. And how fundamentally those same paradigms have not changed much in terms of how geopolitics is analyzed.
Other overlooked realities involve talk about support for the Vietnam War by age. Often we are taught to think about it as young spoiled baby boomers opposing the war, unlike their wise parents who had been so hardened by WWII and The Depression. But in reality, support for the Vietnam War was higher among those under 30 than those over 49. Looking at the figures presented, those over 49 would have been born by 1916 in 1965, and by 1922 in 1971. I don't know what the breakdown of age cohorts would be within that older group, but I can't help but wondering how the many still living WWI veterans looked upon the Cold War and Vietnam War as it started, turned sour, and eventually left a nation profoundly disillusioned. I've never found much on the topic. And sadly, since the number of living WWI veterans is now down to three, I fear it may end up another largely untold and perhaps overlooked story.

Perhaps the bottom line as to why Veteran's Day ended up replacing Armistice Day (as opposed to finding another date for Veteran's Day), is that American society both in the 1950's and now, is much more willing to celebrating the making of war, than the making of peace. And that's a shame. Especially in these times, when Americans could have shared that 20 minutes of silence with so much of the world.

Say Goodnight Readers.

Whose Patriotism Would You Question?

Today, I'm going to talk about a major double standard in American society. But this one unlike those involving skin color, gender, and even class by and large goes unnoticed and unquestioned. This double standard is about political views, and goes to the heart of how love of one's country is seen is contemporary-especially post Vietnam War-America.

Of course, there's been a lot of talk over the past three decades, probably too much talk, about the so called "white working class Republicans". Why too much talk? Because above all, it's a bit of a Red Herring. Sure it is possible to find poor and working class Caucasians who vote Republican, but they are in reality a small minority. As statistician Andrew Gelman demonstrated very well in his book "Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State", voters in nearly every state and demographic become more likely to vote Republican as their incomes rise. However, this increase is simply much steeper among whites than minorities, among Red State voters than Blue State voters, men than women, rural than urban, and among heavily observant Protestants than everyone else. It is certainly true that many blue collar voters are do in fact vote Republican against their economic interests and that many liberals are well off or even rich-also against their economic interests. But both of the above represent visible minorities rather than the norm. After all, if 70% of all low income white voters are primarily democrat and if George Bush got 60% of all high income voters, the minority 30% and 40% will still amount millions of people-plenty enough to feed the common stereotypes if one is determined enough!!! But on the whole most of the conventional wisdom over how income, education and religion influence American voters should probably be thrown out with the morning trash.
The differences between "liberals on the coast" and those with "heartland values" is not a class struggle so much as a regional difference between people who are mostly middle to high income.

Now we've gotten the idea of class resentment out of the way, as an explanation:Why is it that so many people would question the patriotism of anti-war protesters without knowing their intentions? But yet, the same people would take for granted that the much talked about "guys with Confederate flags" are the most patriotic Americans of all-despite any reactionary politics-even though that flag symbolized an attempt to succeed from the United States? I've thought about this a bit, and could not escape the conclusion that this is either about regional power struggles or it is about a double standards that systematically finds ways to judge the right as more patriotic than the left.

"Wait a minute!" some readers may say, "Aren't Southerners often unjustifiably labeled as ignorant, backwards, or racist?". The answer to this is "Yes. It happens all the time." Sometimes even very progressive and/or educated Southerners are misjudged completely. Regional conflicts often do cut both ways. However, this might not be a purely regional conflict. After all, Confederate flags have become common in places other than the former Confederacy. I've been told by multiple sources that the Confederate flag is much more common in much of Pennsylvania than in most of the South. Personally, I didn't see much of it, during a brief time period spent in Georgia, but have seen it all over the place in Washington towns-not too far from notoriously liberal Seattle.

So if the Confederate flag is no longer confined to regions of the US that were once a part of the Confederacy, what exactly is being asserted against "political correctness", liberalism, and "big government"? For many the answer to this is simple: racism. But is it that simple?
Often the flying of the Confederate flag DOES raise some very emotional debates from the racial angle. But even when this happens nobody decides to question the patriotism of conservative white males in the way that anti-war protesters are ASSUMED to at least be a "less patriotic" class of Americans. And when people are called out for not only flying the stars and bars, but also doing other things that romanticize the Southern cause, such as claiming that their favorite book and/or movie was "Gone with the Wind", generally their patriotism won't be questioned even if their racial sensitivity is. Could it be that there's is a certain ideological bias and not just a regional one? Probably considering how rarely Southern or Texan accents are shown on TV, movies, or in the media. And most likely that ideology would tend to involve certain things like relative hawkishness, a distrust of big government, contempt for liberals, boosterism for "traditional" family values, and so on.

In fact, sometimes the inequity in how Confederate flag flyers and "Gone with the Wind" lovers are treated compared to protesters goes deeper than that. It is not unusual for diversity training as it exists in some segments of the left to portray Confederate flag flying or enjoying "Gone with the Wind" as "typical of white people". And any white person who grew up in a family/community where none of this is the norm will often be told how blind or sheltered they are and even firmly told not to "put themselves above" the guys with the Confederate flag. So in the context of diversity training anti-war protesters are often told not to put on any snotty airs about being less racist than those who express some level of "Confederate pride" or "rebel pride", and that yes of course, they are just as racist if not more so. They are just too lacking in self-awareness to see that what they think is greater tolerance is really just an uppity look down attitude on more open working class whites.

And yet, the minute the context shifts to the topic of patriotism they are automatically labeled as "lesser" Americans. And told that they "failed" to appeal to the "guys with the Confederate flags" because they supposedly didn't fly the American flag quite enough.

However, having been to a number of protests I can tell you that American flags actually are a fairly common feature. And no. The overwhelming majority of them are NOT burned, defaced, or presented upside down. Of course, some people have suggested that we should replace a number of other symbols with the stars and stripes. Among those things include the UN flag, Peace Symbols, images of Iraqi people and/or their suffering, signs, slogans, and even the rattlesnake with the "Don't Tread on Me". Also many suggested getting rid of the puppets, the street theater and costumes used for political commentary, and even the bandannas some people bring in case there's tear gas.

So should a protest look like a 1970's Nixon rally? One important thing to consider is that these rallies are not just watched by "Middle America", but by people all over the world. And if the anti-war movement presents itself as only concerned about American death, that could look less than empathetic towards other people around the world. And it is. At this point we unelected an administration who horrified, enraged, and even scared large number of people around the world with this behavior. And in many other countries people who will be watching these protests in the US, are also seeing much more of the carnage in Iraq than is typically shown on US television.

Perhaps the solution to a lot of public perceptions about anti-war protests is that perhaps more people should just try and see a few for themselves. After all, the whole society has been filled with images and stereotypes since the 70's. And what better way to replace stereotypes than a little reality.

But either way, we'll think about replacing the peace symbol when The Confederate flag is no longer sold as a bumpersticker.

Say Goodnight Readers!