great post everybody, great participation.
A couple of comments:
First, Nariel. The anti-America protest in Washington was indeed anti-military. Ask the majority of military men and women, especially those serving in the GWOT, and REALLY listen, as you say.
Did that protest help the men and women in Iraq fight the war, or did it help the terrorists seeking to destroy the country? Who supported the protests more, the American military, or the terrorists? There really is only one answer to those questions.
And speaking of ANSWER, have you checked in to the background and funding sources of these creeps? They sure aren't supportive of America or the military, any more than any of the other pro-terrorist, pro-socialist groups that participated.
There's a saying by a great American: For most people, history begins the day of their birth. I think that's true,and helps explain the current grumbling and dissatisfaction in both parties. Tom did a great job of explaining the history of both Democrats and Republicans. My IQ must have gone up by about 100 points, as I actually understood Tom's well reasoned post. 
Politics has ALWAYS been partisan. That's what makes it fun. If the Democrats get too far to the Left, they lose elections. If Republicans get too far to the Right, they lose elections. Parties HATE losing elections, and will balance themselves out. It's how the system works. And, contrary to popular opinion, IT'S A GOOD SYSTEM!!!!
Someone once said, Representative Democracy isn't the best government, but it's the best government man has created. Amen, and amen.
The Republican and Democratic parties have lost sight of government by the people and choose to rule by the elite of the party system. Their often hypocritical "we know best" attitude has decreased ouor civil liberties, while grnering power to be held by a few people over many.
Both parties have forsaken their goals, the Republicans used to want small Government, and the democrats used to fight for the common man, both parties fail miserably in their former objectives.
As for the anti-war protest, you can be anti-war and pro military. I am a veteran who is opposed to the war in Iraq, since we have done studies in the past that are currently being proven as tue, that Iraq would slip into Civil war, possibly become predominatly Shia and aling itself wit Iran.
Blue, please read Imperial Grunts. It will give you perspective on what's goingon in Iraq.
I'm aware you can be pro-military, and against Iraq. The "mother" Sheehan anti-america rally did not fit that category however.
I choose my word very carefully on that. Let's be clear, I have NO PROBLEM with anti-war protestors, While I find them misguided, it truly is their right. I will however always speak up against Anti-Military protestors. As that also is my right.
Mother Sheehan at first gave me trouble, but as time went on I realized that she wasn't anti-war, but anti-military, and simply using her status as a gold star in order to further her own agenda. That I have a problem with.
To begin... your column seemed to be about "when did it okay to blame America first.. and become a nation of blamers?" Thus.. that is the direction that I have taken my comments. :0)
Mark: You said it was indeed an anti-military protest, rather than anti-war. I respectfully disagree. If I were to ask the military persons who were there.. they could give me their personal POV, but that would not change what the demonstration was about.. which was Anti-War. A protest is for exactly that purpose.. to protest what the participators feel is an unjust thing. It is a right of the populace to do this, irregardless of if others feel it is 'wrong' or 'unhelpful'.
Yet, I continue to hold to the spirit of the article as I read it which was not about partisan politics primarily but about "blamers and blaming" in our nation.
As I read the comments here, I continue to see yet more of that... who's fault is this or that? protestors? terrorists? leftists, rightists, etc...
And yet we still have not addressed the REAL question that was posed at the outset of the Article which was this:
When did we become a blame first society? When did it become OK to blame America first? When did personal responsibility become passé? Or better yet, why?
That, is my understanding of this post.. is that we have become a nation of blamers, doing little on the "personal responsibility" end of things. I would certainly like to see more people address that rather than be part of the very problem as it was stated in the article. He said/she said, They thought/we thought is all yet more deflection from the original question.. which is when, where, why, how did we become this way. To answer it with yet more blame-gaming just seems rather preposterous. The answers are within us ... in OUR personal answers of: how, when, where, why did *I*come to blame and take little responsibility.. when we know these answers.. then we can follow them like a thread through the heart of Society and its mechanisms.
Oddly Nariel it was introspection that spawned this post. I have evaluated myself as I often do. I know I am not perfect, but at the same time I feel obligated to mention those that are also contributing to the problem.
I am now trying to be part of the solution by adjusting my public behavior, and I reserve the right to express my frustration when others do not do the same.
When did I begin blaming society first? I don't. I do see significant issues within the culture that are causing and adding to poverty, and that prevent an active war effort. Blaming America for the world's ills does appear to be a particular kneejerk reaction on the left however.
Do I categorize others by names? Hippies, Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Moderate left, Loony Communists? Political labels are helpful in general arguments about politics and culture. They become problematic when they are applied to specific individuals. For example, while Nariel tends to lean left, I've learned not to pigeonhole her. The same is true of Joseph, of OKLiberal.
Do I believe that people have flipflopped and aligned with former adversaries? Do I believe they were ever really adversaries at all?
When did I begin to do this? Politics makes strange bedfellows. Alliances in politics exist around specific issues. While broad political coalitions exist,and are exemplified by Parties such as the DNC or GOP, specific issues make for specific alliances.
Why does it make me so uncomfortable to consider these things? Doesn't. if it did, I wouldn't be here.
Why does a single grieving woman bother me so? Because Cindy Sheehan has been held up as the typical family member of our fallen soldiers. She's not. She has used her son's heroic death to push her own political agenda, dishonoring him in the process.
Why do I respond with anger, rather than compassion? Because she gave up the right to compassion when she chose to enter the political arena. She is now a political figure, and open to question, and yes, ridicule for her far left, shallow ideology.
Why do I namecall? Nowhere in Zaph's post is there any namecalling. If you are referring to labels, please see my answer above. If you are referring to the terms used by many on the left, such as nazi, fascist, etc used toward Bush and conservatives, it appears to be a way to stop arguments because they cannot engage in civil discourse.
Mark: WOW.. now THAT is some comment that really leads us to consider things more carefully and thoughtfully! I thank you for it!
Like you, I do not blame society at large for the problems of a few. Society can only be as constructive or destructive as its members. I think that it is very true that the deflection of persons' issues is where the heart of the problem lay.. it is always easier to hold up the mirror to someone else, rather than ourselves.
Namecalling, or "blanket terms" I have always had an aversion to.. simply because it takes away the individuality of the persons involved. Like you noted, though I may lean decidedly to the left.. I am by no far stretch of the imagination easily "categorized". I think for many.. it would also be true then. I think that the categorizations is what stops the hearing process between people, because when someone is "named or categorized" they may take offense before we ever even begin the dialogues, yanno? An old saying was "to know something's 'true name' is to have power over it" I think that is true in all categorizations and "name callings" when we do that, it may sometimes be because we seek to gain a certain power over them or to "one up them"
Now see.. Cindy Sheehan does not bother me, because I see her through a completely different process. Though as of late, it does seem that the original "message" has become lost in the muddle of the "game". That is sad. But I see her as a mother would.. as a woman that lost her child.. and so really don't think more of her beyond that. I don't see her as the voice of the nation, or of the anti-war movement (though she would like us to). I see her as a grieved mother.. nothing more, nothing less. As to my response, I have none. She is getting all the response she wants, as I see it.. and so why give anymore.. i guess more strictly said.. I simply do not regard her anymore, because she is choosing to be lost in her grief.. and lost in her politics at this time. While I understand where it emerged from, its now entered the realm of shadow.
I think.. by far and away.. the nation that blames, is the nation that refuses to see that their one life means more then they realize that it does. All of us, with our words, create our world to be daily new. Based upon the positivity or negativity we either increase the positive or the negative in the world around us.
If more people would actually take the time to know the how, where, when and why of how they feel.. (as Mark expressed in his post above) I think we would ALL be better off. For me, when I read Mark's words I can KNOW that he is not a knee-jerk person and that he truly cares about the nation and where its headed.. and THAT MAKES DIALOGUING WITH HIM ALL THAT MORE USEFUL AND INDEED CRITICAL TO THE FUTURE. :0)
I love when we can speak openly about our views.. and even though different, we come to appreciate the reality which is.. we all care about this
We are in trouble.
I can see and feel the same things you see and feel.
My own process to deal with the problem is to ask everyone to vote for a third party.
Any third party.
If enough of those that don't vote, and enough of those that vote for the lesser of two evils, vote for a third party, perhaps the two main parties will be forced too listen.
Maybe.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Best,
Allan
What America needs is a legitimate third party. A centrist party that cares about the border, will restrict abortion to a rarity, will reform the prison system so innocent people don't end up on death row, will fix the welfare system so it only provides temporary relief and doesn't become a crutch.
Jay? Is that really you? You sound... reasonable. Are you feeling well?
Surprize Kevin, that is what we moderate Conservatives have been fighting for all along.
Commenting by HaloScan
