patriotism and the distinction between "country" and "government"

Hi everybody!

So I occasionally read a philosophy blog operated by a group of professors, the head of which being a guy named Brian Leiter from UT.

Anyway, a recent entry (of a crazy liberal bent) was added a bit ago, of which I thought I'd toss a bit up there. It's essentially a discussion from Howard Zinn about patriotism and the distinction between "country" and "government." Below are some quoted passages.

But those who gave their lives did not, as they were led to believe, die for their country; they died for their government. The distinction between country and government is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, which will be referred to again and again on July 4, but without attention to its meaning. The Declaration of Independence is the fundamental document of democracy. It says governments are artificial creations, established by the people, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and charged by the people to ensure the equal right of all to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, as the Declaration says, "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." It is the country that is primary--the people, the ideals of the sanctity of human life and the promotion of liberty.

Mark Twain, having been called a "traitor" for criticizing the U.S. invasion of the Philippines, derided what he called "monarchical patriotism." He said: "The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: 'The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: 'Our country, right or wrong!' We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had -- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism."

Now before anyone gets all crazy, don't assume I want to abolish the government. Or even, necessarily, that I totally agree with Howard Zinn. However, America is awesome, particularly because we DON'T NEED to abolish the government. We live in a land of representative democracy. If we don't like what the government is doing, we alter it, by voting for someone else.

The Value of Tears

Hi folks. I'm just taking a break from the hell that is my Open Memo to bring you more ridiculous quotes from the internet.

NO man is worth your tears, but the one who is won't make you cry.

So let's begin here by pointing out the logic flaw.

If no man is worth your tears, then there cannot be one who is. It's impossible. If you were really going for some kind of reality here, you'd have to say, "only one man is worth your tears, and he won't make you cry."

Beyond that, though, there's a whole other issue here. Since when did people, particularly women, place a value on tear production? Furthermore, what kind of tears are we talking about? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty sure my mom has cried with pride a time or two when I've done something particularly nifty. Does this mean I wasn't worth her tears, since I made her cry?

So let's try this again.

Only one man is worth your tears of sorrow, and he won't make you cry those tears of sorrow.

Alright. At least in a logical sense, I'm nearly cool with this. But then I remember that people die. So, supposing you marry, you have at least 2, and quite possibly several men who you might cry for in your lifetime, since grampa, daddy, and hubby are all likely to die before you, you lucky female-types you.

Yeah, I think we're going to have to just toss the whole thing. Instead, let's return to a quote that is perfectly reasonable and correct in every circumstances.

Nobody puts Baby in the corner.

Now that's a quote I can really get behind.