From the Huffington Post:

Newt Gingrich, who is currently mulling a presidential bid in 2012, said at a political event in South Carolina (12/16/10) that most of America’s problems can be blamed on the “leftist news media,” Hollywood, tenured academics, overpaid federal workers, and unemployed people.

As opposed to Bush’s two wars; unregulated, criminal financial shenanigans; GOP obstructionism in Congress; and feed-the-rich tax policies?

Or as opposed to a disgraced has-been who deliberately poisoned America’s political discourse with his vituperative buzzwords?

Putz.

Honey, please. Today at school someone , the same person as usual , forwarded another of those emails. This one, thankfully, was not political in nature, just the old one about cell phone numbers being released to telemarketers. I dutifully found the Snopes.com link and replied to all without comment, other than to say, “This is an old one.”

But I’m commenting here. Jesus H. Spaghetti Monster, people, where are your brains?? If there were a looming deadline of such awful significance, wouldn’t you have read about it in the newspaper? Seen it on the news? HEARD ABOUT IT FROM ONE OF YOUR RANTING NUTJOB RADIO FROTHERMOUTHS???

Years ago, before the intertubes were invented for the purpose of keeping the unwashed in a turmoil of anxiety, these things were spread orally, over lunch at work. I remember my own lovely first wife, who is far more skeptical than the run of the mill executive, coming home breathless with horror at the kidnapping of a little boy by mysterious women with canvas bags in the restrooms at the mall. (Need I say that the little boy was white and the kidnappers were black?)

We were all to beware sending our children to the restroom alone, of course, because those people lurked everywhere. Pretty horrific stuff for any parent, to be sure.

After one tiny frisson, however, my rational brain kicked in. I pointed out to MLFW that if such a kidnapping had taken place, wouldn’t that be the only thing on the news for weeks? Had we seen anything like this in the newspaper? She did the grinding-gears-because-because-but-it’s-such-a-good-story! face and realized that I had to be right. Again.

The current emailer just replied to my reply with, “IT’S NEW TO ME!!!!” I can’t tell whether she’s offended that I have—once again—exposed her to the entire school as a panicky, credulous git, but darling, the fact that you’ve never encountered information before doesn’t mean that you have to take it at face value. Quite the reverse, IS WHAT I’M TRYING TO TEACH YOU HERE.

Onward to the midterm elections. ::sigh::

I saw —yet again—one of those bumper stickers the gist of which is “Like your freedom? Thank a veteran.” These things drive me nuts.

Let me see if I can parse this whole thing. First of all, I find the sentiment to be a snide bit of conservatism. (Hold that thought.) The implication is that without our armed forces deployed in Iraq, we would soon find ourselves without freedom of the press; that unless we use our soldiers to invade and occupy somewhere, we will no longer be able to hold free elections.

Such thinking is of course incredibly bad thinking. Our armed forces have not been engaged in any kind of conflict the outcome of which would have affected our system of government since 1865. Everything since then has been wars of empire or wars of strategy. Even the invasion of Afghanistan, which could be justified in terms of self defense, was not occasioned by any threat to our actual constitutional structure, nor would we have lost any of our rights had we decided not to tackle the project. I will say nothing of Iraq.

I think it likely that the teabagger on the other side of that bumper would offer the rejoinder that, in our current two wars at least, we’re “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” To which I would reply, that’s not freedom you’re worried about, sweetheart, it’s safety. Those are two different things. You know, the things Patrick Henry was quick to distinguish one from the other: “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

And even that kind of thinking is ludicrous, not to mention cowardly. No one in their right mind suggests that any of the Islamic extremists are prepared to invade us. What are the teabaggers thinking is going to happen, Baghdad Dawn? I suggest those people check under their bed every night, and then sleep tight and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes, certainly, the extremists are constantly plotting to harm us. No question. But it’s also true that all such plots have been foiled by careful police work, not by armed incursions either “over there” or here. And it’s also true that our military response to the problem has served as our enemies’ greatest recruitment tool. So thanking a veteran for keeping us safe is offbase as well.

So does this mean I hate our military? Of course not. The men and women who choose to serve in our armed forces are mostly people with a vision of service. I respect that more than a teabagger would believe possible.

However, I distrust our military, and in that I don’t think I am alone. It seems to me, from my reading of Max Farrand’s Annals of the Constitutional Convention, that most if not all of the founding fathers were of the same opinion. And certainly our greatest general-Presidents believed as I do. Can you imagine George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower suggesting that patriotism required us to, in effect, idolatrize our army?

Our founding fathers were clear on the subject: funding is to be restricted and controlled by the Legislative; the armies and navies are to be commanded by the Executive, a civilian. There is no independent military, and this arrangement is the source of our liberty, not the use of firepower. One only has to think of places such as Turkey, Pakistan, Chile, to realize that our liberty excludes our army from our freedoms. And that is why we remain free.

Oh, and how am I so sure that it’s a conservative bumpersticker?

You’re welcome.