Saturday, June 17, 2006

She says it all

The Dixie Chicks:

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

You know, she's right. Who needs patriotism? I'm way too busy climbing the corporate ladder and glutting myslef on the spoils of freedom and capitalism to get all involved in this patriotism thing. Isn't that what it's all about? Aren't we here on this world just for ourselves? What's more important than that?

We shouldn't believe in a higher cause. How inconvenient. So what if our country is attacked. So what if it's slowly become a hispanic-muslim society. I got albums to sell. I don't have time to care about all that stuff. Patriotism? Hah...who needs it?

If there's one thing about Natalie Maines that I like, it's the way she masterfully summarizes how the Left is slowly weakening our country. THIS attitude, reflected in her words, is the biggest threat to America. It's not the illegal immigrants, the islamo-wackjobs, or some psycho-midget in North's people like Natalie Maines and their don't-give-a-damn-about-my-country attitude.

IF America ever falls, it will be because of people like this.


Dan Trabue said...

"We shouldn't believe in a higher cause."

While no fan of the Dixie Chicks' music, I doubt seriously that she believes what you're miscontruing her position to be. I don't follow what they say that much, but I've heard enough to know that she believes in trying to stop a dangerous president. That IS a higher cause.

In fact, the team believed in it enough to risk throwing their careers away. That's noble, some would be inclined to think.

That her higher cause differs from yours does not make it less a higher cause.

You've misrepresented her. I'd suppose what she's likely saying here is something like what Twain said (although not so poetically):

"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on...There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."

Or perhaps what Einstein was saying here:

"Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

John The Patriot said...

I don't see how you can defend her remarks, but you don't seem to find any fault in what she says. I guess suggesting that America is 'rotten to the heart' is your way of agreeing with her.

That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm not defending her remarks, I haven't read them all. I'm calling you on misrepresenting her position.

And I didn't say that America was rotten to the heart, Twain did. I'm pointing out that many people have, at times, had a problem with their homeland. I'm guessing you have had problems with some of the US' policies. And we will rightly stand strongly against policies that we think are rotten. To do anything less would be unpatriotic.

And, to misrepresent an opponent's position in an attempt to demonize them is a wrong, John. That's what I'm saying. Can't we agree upon that much?