"Perhaps with more clarity and charity than was always deserved, it was Dr. King who often reminded us there was no moral badness, and there was moral blindness... It was this spirit that turned hatred into forgiveness, anger into conviction, and a bitter life into a great one" (Washington Post, July 16, 2008).
Now, I'm not sure what he meant by Dr. King leading a "bitter" life -- it's worth noting, and may reveal his underlying opinion of our late, and great, leader -- but my primary focus here is on McCain's previous history with the treatment of Dr. King's memory.
As it turns out, in 1983 McCain voted against the creation of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, apparently because he simply didn't want yet another federal (paid) holiday on the books. In fact, he was part of the small minority of congressmen who opposed the legislation. According to an ABC News blog by correspondent Jake Tapper, "Most Republicans in the House voted for the holiday (89 voted for the holiday, 77 opposed), though all three Arizona House Republicans were opposed. Reps. Dick Cheney, R-Wyoming, and Newt Gingrich, R-Georgia, voted for the holiday. (Cheney had voted against it in 1978.)" (April 3, 2008).
Now, I know we've all heard about the time McCain spent as a P.O.W. You'd never guess it, but part of his experience is actually relevant to this topic. This is also reported in the same ABC News blog: "'They never gave us any meaningful news,' McCain said. 'They told us th
e day that Martin Luther King was shot, they told us the day that Bobby Kennedy was shot, but they never bothered to tell us about the moon shot. So it was certainly selected news'" (emphasis added). How the heck is MLK getting shot not meaningful? Perhaps it wasn't meaningful to him because he didn't, and doesn't, give a crap about Dr. King's message or the Civil Rights Movement. It is pure deceit for anyone who opposed such legislation to call themselves a patriot of this country. Dr. King represented everything that the American public forum should be -- and his call for change was absolutely essential to the growth of this nation. Evidently Dr. King's life didn't really have too much of an effect on John McCain. I wasn't even alive, but when I watch video footage of Dr. King speaking, I sure as hell get inspired.
e day that Martin Luther King was shot, they told us the day that Bobby Kennedy was shot, but they never bothered to tell us about the moon shot. So it was certainly selected news'" (emphasis added). How the heck is MLK getting shot not meaningful? Perhaps it wasn't meaningful to him because he didn't, and doesn't, give a crap about Dr. King's message or the Civil Rights Movement. It is pure deceit for anyone who opposed such legislation to call themselves a patriot of this country. Dr. King represented everything that the American public forum should be -- and his call for change was absolutely essential to the growth of this nation. Evidently Dr. King's life didn't really have too much of an effect on John McCain. I wasn't even alive, but when I watch video footage of Dr. King speaking, I sure as hell get inspired.Hopefully it's only a matter of time before the "Straight Talk Express" is derailed. Unfortunately for Mr. McCain, the more one digs, the worse he looks.
That's right, I just called out McCain's patriotism.
That's right, I just called out McCain's patriotism.
3 comments:
McCain is making a very clear point when he says "No meaningful news," in that the only thing that held any meaning for POWs in Vietnam was the status of... wait for it... the war in Vietnam. Having Viet Cong torturers and propagandists come to rub in the failures of American society would indeed be considered not meaningful (not to mention not necessarily trusted). John Lennon was inspiring, but I'll go out on a limb and say McCain wouldn't have given two shits about his assassination while he was having his teeth broken off at the gum. Is McCain a racist against rich White Catholics for not being too concerned with Bobby Kennedy's death either?
Furthermore, as amazing and meaningful as you and I find Martin Luther King, Jr. (and make no mistake, I do recognize him as one of the most important Americans ever) Senator McCain was making a rather valid and important point there too: is it really an honor to Dr. King to give everybody a day off from work and school (a day, I might add, where literally not a single person I know does anything even remotely related to remembering Dr. King) and then have the salaries of all Gov't employees paid by our taxes? Or could it be that since in the modern era nobody really gives a shit about President's day, Memorial day or any others, maybe, just maybe, it isn't that great an idea to flush more money down the drain so a tiny percentage of people can go to their kids middle school to see them dress up as Dr. King and say "I have a dream..."
There's a very good reason why nobody really brings up McCain's opposition to MLK Day, or that statement from the Viet Cong gulag, because it's cheap partisan hackery, and even our slovenly worthless mainstream media opted to skip it. Questioning McCain's patriotism and accusing him of being a racist is no better than questioning Obama's because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or calling him a terrorist because his middle name is Hussein. It turns out we may have to go a little deeper than Republican = Racist to get meaning out of this election.
You may also find it interesting to know that Dr. King was an ardent Zionist (which the UN describes as Racism) and a plagiarist. Is it just possible that shallow labels and TV cliches don't really tell the story?
"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Ok, well, I did get some of this this from the mainstream media: ABC news. And fine, it's partisan hackery -- truth be told, I really don't want McCain in the white house. I'm scared of what direction our already disastrous position in Iraq might take, and of us doing the same thing against Iran (I write about this in the really really long post, under section IV, where it says "OK, NOW PAY ATTENTION" -- still waiting to hear your reaction on that).
I think he will bring more of the same for the environmental movement -- weak and insufficient policy.
I think it shows poor leadership to call the war a success, but McCain's sticking to those guns.
His energy plan has more holes than swiss cheese: what does it mean when someone calls for offshore drilling instead of holding oil companies accountable for the 68 million acres of U.S. land they already control for drilling purposes (not including offshore, ANWR, or Iraq, by the way)?
I can't list here all the reasons I really don't want McCain in the White House in January 2009. You got me, I've lowered myself to partisanship.
Back to the post: it's true -- neither of us know people who spend MLK's birthday celebrating his life. But I think there are people out there who did, and still do. And I, for one, think his legacy deserves special recognition. It's reasonable, however, to say that taxpayers shouldn't have to shoulder the burden. Maybe the best compromise would be an unpaid holiday, without penalty, if you choose to not go to work. Those who chose to go to work would be paid for their time, as usual. Does that sound reasonable?
I still think it shows a lack of moral judgment to refuse to publicly recognize one of the greatest American leaders of the 20th century, and be in the minority in doing so, and continue to do so after other members of your party have changed their votes. It may just be a coincidence that he voted the same way as Jesse Helms on this one.
That was really the part that got to me, much more so than the "meaningful news" part. I still don't know what he means by "bitter," but I don't know if that's how I would describe someone who put his ass on the line, literally, to stand up for something downright vital for a society that really wants to be called a democracy.
Also, let's make this clear: I never called John McCain a racist. Let's not put words in Spen's mouth. If we were discussing Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond, I would make no reservations about calling them racists. I'm really just trying to reexamine the basic premises of what is considered patriotic and unpatriotic, as I'm really just sick of the conventional Republican definition.
Once again, don't get me wrong, if I was the senior senator from Arizona, I would not have hesitated to vote yes on a MLK Day. Hell, I'd consider an MLK week. The point is that it's entirely reasonable to disagree. Further, your point about him sticking to his anti-MLK guns despite the fact that the majority of his GOP douchetard friends had relented is precisely the reason why people like McCain, and I should think it wouldn't be held against him. Towing the company line and not speaking your own mind, or "speaking truth to power" as useful idiot clowns like Cindy Sheehan might put it, is precisely the reason our country is so sharply divided right now. Socially liberal Republicans like McCain and Giuliani (not saying I particularly like them) and Hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman are, believe it or not, good for the democratic process. Voting with your team for no other reason than they're your team is lame, and it's not why we elect senators and congressman.
And finally, I know why you're not fond of McCain, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, (I'm overwhelmingly unlikely to vote for him myself) but as I always said with trash like Farenheit 9/11, there's plenty of legit reasons to go after McCain, there's no need to go sifting through the trash for extra nuggets that reflect more poorly on the sifter than the person who's trash it is.
And don't you worry, I'm cooking up a comprehensive rebuttal to your book on the Iraq war.
Post a Comment