Of Thee I Sing

My country 'tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died,

Land of the Pilgrims' pride,

From every mountain side,

Let freedom ring.

If you found yourself singing the above lines, congratulations. You have remembered the melody of a song that I haven't heard since, well, grade school--but I recall it like it was yesterday. It's there in our annals, there in our memories, there in the honorific legacy of songs of patriotism that many of you reading this might have been taught at one point.

It's probably not true that nobody sings it anymore, but neither would it be a stretch to say that that song has faded in importance. As opposed to: "God Bless America," at least in Milwaukee. In a certain place in town, not only is that song repetitively sung, thousands are also inclined to stand up to receive it.

That's because instead of the time-honored tradition we also call the 7th Inning Stretch, people who come to Milwaukee Brewers games are also treated, as it were, to a rendition of "God Bless America," sung by the same person over the sound system every single time it is done. If he's not there, the stretch features the two lively, carefree tunes that people are used to singing at that point in the evening, "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," and "Roll Out the Barrel," like they did the other night I was there.

I wonder how many people missed "God Bless America." If so, they didn't boo. Everyone seemed to celebrate. Nobody seemed to mind much.

So--why is "God Bless America" sung/performed/even noted? That's occurred to me. Who is that for, anyhow? Do enough people care, and does that matter in the greater scheme of things?

Maybe something else is working here. When the fellow--of Polish or Slavic descent because his name is Bob Kozlowski, Director of Guest Relations for the Brewers--finishes singing, he adds notes rising instead of the way it's supposed to be sung, with two falling final notes. Maybe it's a reminder that this country is, after all, our "home," and it's essential to his deliverance. And perhaps it's an ode to our troops, because he stands at attention and gives a snappy salute when he's finished. Maybe it's his necessity to remind us of the sacrifices people have made for our freedoms.

Except for this: around the 4th inning, some former military person has been plucked out the crowd and shown on the in-house camera--and people give him or her a big thank-you applause. Never fails. So that commemoration has been already demonstrated by the time our friend gets around to singing, in the 7th inning. Isn't that laying it on a little thick?

Consider, also this: When he's not there, it's not played or sung. So is this guy a patriot, or more of a pest? Did he somehow get under someone's skin and insist that we're not sufficiently patriotic and someone has to go out of his way to remind us of that, so it might as well be him? Does he necessarily have to 'own' this performance? Even Broadway has stand-ins. It would astonish me if someone else wasn't standing in line to do it in his place. I would think there would be a queue all the way downtown. But if he doesn't sing it, it won't be sung. Otherwise, we dance in the aisles.

People stand for the song, too. Just about everyone. The last time I was at AmFam Stadium, though, I didn't stand. Am I an unappreciative schmoe?

I doubt that sincerely. My Dad, now 98, served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. I have honored that many times, but not in a baseball stadium by blindly responding to someone's need to show off his voice; he sings a cappella. When I came into the stadium the other day, too, the national anthem was being played. Everyone, whether going to the bathroom, ordering a beer, or just trying to find their seats, stopped and observed that. I did, too. I didn't have to do that, but I did. The national anthem does, and should, mean more.

Note, too, that "God" is part of the title "God Bless America," unlike the one I quoted above, the name of which isn't included in its main verse (but which is at the start of the 3rd of its four verses. I'll buy you a beer if you know the words without taking out your iPhone). That, I suspect, is attached to his singing of it: that God smiles on our undertakings, and someone should note that, too. I wonder if atheists go along with all this. If not, does this constitute a scold of sorts? Like, get with it already?

That has always made me uneasy. One of things about America that seems incongruous is that many of us are very willing to write off our success and world dominance to almighty intervention, referring to it at the beginning and end of relevant discussions. But that isn't what did it, not even close.

It was the good fortune of being in a part of the world with tremendous natural resources. It was the dedication and subsequent adjustment to the rule of law and respect for a necessarily evolving Constitution to try to keep up with enormous technological and cultural changes that are only natural with the passage of time. And it was the acceptance of millions of immigrants whose presence signified and demonstrated that which has been obvious for decades: That America is, or supposed to be, the beacon of democracy and endlessly a work in progress, which only fools deny.

None of those things can now be guaranteed because of one man's frightening acts of intimidation and evocation of someone's God to be actually blessing such undertakings. I do not believe that they represent any of the great things for which America has always been noted. God will not bring back our prestige, which is being undone on a daily basis now; only responsible, active and determined people will. Their absence will make America pathetic, not great again. And I won't stand for it.

The Part Everyone Missed

Bombing Iran and making big holes in their nuclear weapons development program was probably the most rational act that 47 has done so far. Except for a couple of things: First, he refused to continue negotiations on a deal to limit Iran's program so that it would pull back on nuclear weapons peaceably and unilaterally. He didn't want to pay any prices for that. 

But in fact he did: He bombed the nuclear facilities that he refused to negotiate to originally prevent. So we all paid for it, in a sense. And because the job's not finished, it didn't work the way he intended. We may keep paying.

The old Jimmy Carter philosophy of showing respect for other nations, prestigious or not, has disappeared with Barack Obama, whose bargaining ostensibly delayed Iran's nuclear program for 15 years (before the monster took over and wiped it out). But something he and his clueless Defense Secretary, Pete (Tattoo) Hegseth said afterwards that caught my attention, but no other commentators, amazingly.

47 did to Iran what Israel did to Iraq in 1981: it bombed its nuclear research and development facility. After the hand-wringing of several too-little-too-late Democrats (and one Republican, Thomas Massie, who's been written off as somewhere off the wall long ago),  and conveniently ignoring the authority Congress gave Joe Biden to use his powers to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the dust has settled on 47's decision: Probably necessary. Military and/or commando repercussions? We will see. Those attacked, if not completely obliterated, play long games and have elephantitis of the memory.

All this for something that was deemed necessary, but ineffectively addressed. The fact-finders that enter the fray after bluster has been obligatorily spewed have concluded that Iran's nuclear development has been taken for a step backwards, all right, but for a few months only. Iran built the facility way the hell underground to prevent a 'bunker buster' such as 47 had planned. 

That's not the only thing that's bothering me, though. Congress sounds like the wee little piggy far too often now, the Republicans having jettisoned any vestige of investigatory or oversight powers after pledging, one at a time and one event at a time, undying fealty to this monster in exchange for not having to run in primaries. (Yes. He's still a monster. One decision which might actually have a good outcome does not make him prescient or wise. It just makes him lucky. Don't forget his disgusting overreach concerning the border.)

What bothers me is what he and his also quite twisted Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, had to say in announcing the attack on Iran. Both, in effect, prayed out loud, calling on their god to justify their actions.

They beseeched their almighty, and quite openly at that. No commentator has made a point of noting that.

Mentioning god? Yes. Presidents have all done it. Franklin Roosevelt prayed aloud over the radio in urging the D-Day soldiers and sailors forward, so 47 can always get a briefing by one of his sycophants who'll likely tell him about it. But as in nearly all things he's ever said, 47 is being, once again, disingenuous.

In all likelihood, he's calling out to his base, many of whom honestly believe that their god arranged, somehow (never mind elections), to rule their country in this, their time of greatest need (again nonsense). He is, also, probably trying to bond with Israelis in saying, in effect, that their 'promised land' has been saved for another day and other attacks.

No greater, or worse, depiction of Christian nationalism has yet existed. An action of government has been directly connected to divine intervention, and that of war besides. It will be utilized again, I'm guessing, when he attacks someone else for some other reason.

Lots of books have now been written about this complete nonsense; not nearly enough on how too much of the public has been taken for a ride by it. The only thing left for 47 (and Hegseth, a true believer) to do is keep reinforcing it whenever conflict either happens or is imminent. Count on it: 47 will call on his semblance of the almighty to get the minions to pray for him or an expected outcome.

Nobody that I've read in the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other periodical have called him out on this. It's the same mentality that liberals have used from when hints of this dangerous phenomenon began, perhaps 50 years ago: Don't challenge it and maybe it will go away. How's that strategy working?

And has it been evoked so often so that it doesn't deserve special mention anymore? Not if it's been thoroughly discussed to this point. Which it hasn't.

Ignoring the camel's nose in the tent, inserted long ago with the Christian Coalition's support of Ronald Reagan, has allowed it to enter and crap all over the rest of us. It is all around us, oozing its way into our thinking despite our efforts to ignore and dismiss it.

An author whom I've read recently, Katharine Stewart, has put it quite well: "The separation of church and state is a good idea--and we should try it."

Christian nationalism is more than a fad which will rise and fall with the market or the public's cultural tastes. It's more like an attachable mania, a frenzy or delirium that chases logic down the road. It underwrites why Republicans in Congress can't budge without invoking Daddy 47 anymore. It is why they don't even make public statements unless asked by reporters, whom they dodge endlessly before ducking into private elevators (at the Capitol). The fear is here and it has taken hold. It is no longer discussed in trepidation that someone important, someone vital, will awaken out of their stupor. The reason is someone's god.

This will not make things better. It will make things worse and far more dangerous. If 47 can get away with evoking someone's idea (certainly not his; he's faking this, too) of a deity that goes along with destroying some other country, based on their own idea of religious fundamentalism, he will take that to its ultimate realization. It will justify a nuclear attack.

He has made the unthinkable thinkable on other things that people have relied on: Why not shatter our belief that the United States would never stage a nuclear attack on someone else without direct provocation, without even a direct or obvious threat? Why not justify it by saying that a god told 47 to attack Iran?

By Thanksgiving--they said a few months, so I'll take the license--Iran is likely to have recovered, say the analysts. What then? The token missile attack that followed the 'bunker buster' was, it says here, a ruse. It will divert our public's attention, as if the outrageous 'big, beautiful bill' currently being discussed didn't go a good enough job of it. Trust this: They are planning something we have never seen before in retribution, be it cyber or an alliance with another unfriendly power or something else.

We have that ahead of us. Do not give up on demonstrating, on protesting, on taking on those whose minds have been bent out of proportion by a sinister huckster with aims at world domination--only for himself. It's too dangerous of a world now. We can no longer walk away from it.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark